SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Did Israel and the U.S. Just Cooperate on a Dry-Run for an...

PLANK NOVEMBER 2, 2012

Did Israel and the U.S. Just Cooperate on a Dry-Run for an Iran Intervention?

BY JONATHAN SCHANZER

Within hours of a bombing raid on a weapons factory in Sudan last month, the international media was pointing fingers at Israel. Some reports suggested that the strike looked like a dry run for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. But lost in the reporting was the fact that thousands of US troops, including senior military officials, were in Israel the day Sudan was attacked. If the U.S. indeed cooperated with Israel in the attack, then this might have been a dry run of an entirely different sort—one that would belie the very public disagreements between the two countries over intervention in Iran.

According to Michael Ross, a former Mossad officer, there is “no doubt at all” that the Yarmouk complex was being used by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. The Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz also notes that members of the Sudanese opposition have fingered Yarmouk as an IRGC facility. Ross says that Sudan “has been a hub for IRGC activities since 1989.” He adds that, “In 1995, in retaliation for the Argentina AMIA bombings in 1994, we were considering retaliating against the Iranians in Sudan. The mission was scrapped by Prime Minister Rabin for fear of escalation.”

In recent years, however, Israel has shed those fears. The Israelis are widely believed to have carried out several military operations against targets in Sudan.  In 2009, they reportedly launched three airstrikes in Sudan, targeting Iranian weapons shipments destined for Hamas in the Gaza Strip. One of those attacks destroyed a 17-truck convoy. Another attack in 2011 targeted a car carrying two men near the town of Port Sudan. And Reuters reports that, “Foreign intelligence sources said Israel carried out an unmanned drone raid on a convoy south of Khartoum [in September] that destroyed 200 tons of munitions.” 

As they always do following a covert attack, Israeli officials denied any knowledge of the recent raid—“Thereis nothing I can say about this subject,” Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israeli TV—though hardly anyone believes him. The more interesting question is whether the United States was involved. The Arabic daily Al-Hayat reports that some Sudanese officials believe the United States knew about the strike in advance and closed its embassy for fear of retribution. State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland called the article “misreporting,” noting that the embassy has been closed since September 12 for security reasons.

But there's more than innuendo. On October 24, Israel and the United States held a large joint military exercise, known as Austere Challenge 2012, in which 3,500 U.S. troops took part. Austere Challenge involved the deployment of sophisticated US missile defense systems in Israel, but no aircraft, according to the US Department of Defense. Yet, just hours before the exercise began, four jets — widely believed to be Israeli — reportedly bombed a weapons depot tied to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum.

Support thought-provoking, quality journalism. Join The New Republic for $3.99/month.

It is also important to note that Yarmouk has been a target of interest for both the United States and Israel for some time. A leaked 2006 State Department cable notes that the plant had the “potential to make a material contribution to missile, WMD, or certain other weapons programs.” Later that year, State also flagged it on its federal registry as an entity of proliferation concern. As early as 1998, Human Rights Watch also noted its concern that Yarmouk “stored chemical weapons for Iraq.” 

One American defense official familiar with U.S. operations in North Africa believes there is a distinct possibility “the Israelis did this with the American military right there, without telling them.” My colleague Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA operative, agrees. He adds, “it’s a possible foretaste of what would happen by June against [nuclear installations in] Iran. The Israelis will not ask for U.S. permission to carry out a raid against Iran.” However, Major Robert Firman, a public affairs officer at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, told me that the U.S. military had “no foreknowledge” and provided “no assistance” in the reported attack on Sudan. 

In all likelihood, according to Jacob Abel, a former Iran analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the attack was precipitated by a “game changing” rocket — one with a longer range or bigger payload than had previously been smuggled to Gaza — that was either being constructed or stored at Yarmouk. “The Israelis were likely watching the facility or intercepted information that drew deep concern.”

There is also ample reason to believe the attack was intended as a message to the Iranians. Not only did it show (again) that the IRGC’s activities in Sudan are well-tracked. It also demonstrated that Israel’s jets can strike targets at great distances — specifically, a distance that’s roughly equal to or longer than the distance between Israel and Iran’s nuclear sites. In another interesting wrinkle, immediately before the jets hit the plant, telecommunicationsin the surrounding area reportedly went dark, much as they did in the minutes leading up to Israel’s strike on Syria’s nuclear reactorin 2007.

Of course, an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be a very different proposition. One of Israel’s targets in Iran, the Fordow nuclear facility, is burrowed deep in the side of mountain and is heavily fortified. As a result,the bombs Israel would need to do the job would be much heavier, necessitating much more fuel than what was needed for Yarmouk. And while Sudan’s air defenses are virtually nonexistent, Iran’s are likely much more robust. Finally, Gerecht adds, the number of jets needed to attack Iran could be roughly 20 times that which hit Sudan. For that reason, it’s difficult to conceive of a direct attack on Iran without some sort of American involvement.

That’s precisely why the presence of the U.S. military in Israel during the recent large-scale military operation in Sudan is so intriguing. Indeed, whether or not the U.S. was involved almost doesn’t matter. Iran must now account for this recent episode in its nuclear calculus. The very possibility that Jerusalem and Washington have closed the gap in their debate over Iran intervention is a weapon all its own.

Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism intelligence analyst at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, is vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 82 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

82 comments

Very interesting - had followed the Yarmouk bombing, but had not realized it was same day as start of Austere Challenge2012. now, just need more on why the Rear Admiral of the USS Stennis was relieved of command about that time. I am certain that South Sudan, Darfur, the Nuba, the Blue Nile (the three internal wars al-Bashir is still waging inside 'Sudan'; Ethiopia, Kenya, and the prospect of the EOWAS/AU intervention in northern Mali made a LOT of nations happy to see someone take out Yarmouk. btw, perhaps two geography confusions can be clarified?: "...Ross says that Iran “has been a hub for IRGC activities since 1989.” " Did you mean Sudan has been a hub...? "...The very possibility that Jerusalem and Israel have closed the gap in their debate..." Did you mean Jerusalem and Washington? or America and Israel?

- K2K

November 2, 2012 at 6:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The very possibility that Jerusalem and Israel have closed the gap in their debate over Iran intervention is a weapon all its own." The last line by K states a good editorial question. The rest of K's comment is as irrelevant as are most of his comments.

- arnon1

November 2, 2012 at 7:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Excellent article Jonathan.

- arnon1

November 2, 2012 at 7:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" The very possibility that Jerusalem and Israel have closed the gap in their debate over Iran intervention is a weapon all its own." If true, that means that at long last Obama has acquired the wisdom necessary to deal with Iran.

- Noga

November 2, 2012 at 9:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If true, that means that at long last Obama has acquired the wisdom necessary to deal with Iran." It's the other way around. Netanyahu has "acquired the wisdom" to cooperate with its most important ally in its confrontation with Iran.

- arnon1

November 2, 2012 at 11:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Whatever. It's at least some pretty incontrovertible evidence that -- whatever about the chemistry between the leaders -- the intel and military cooperation between the U.S. and Israel has been very active these last three-four years.

- ironyroad

November 3, 2012 at 1:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not everything is about a military strike against Iran's nuclear sites. Sometimes it is more about Iran's proxies, especially Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Perhaps Yarmouk was also supplying Hezbollah with rockets and missiles AustereChallenge2012 includes a simulated de-contamination of certain equipment during a chemical weapons attack. http://www.eucom.mil/key-activities/exercises-and-operations/austere-challenge-2012 This makes it likely that one bilateral "dry run" is securing Syria's chemical weapons, a very high priority for the USA, and Israel even though every Israeli seems to now have a gas mask as contingency.

- K2K

November 3, 2012 at 6:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Netanyahu has "acquired the wisdom" to cooperate with its most important ally in its confrontation with Iran." Hard to imagine a more stupid and clueless observation.

- Noga

November 3, 2012 at 7:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's what my husband says, ironyroad, and he is very well read and updated about these things, from many sources. And yet he would prefer to see Romney as president as far as Israel is concerned. At the same time he doesn't take the view that another Obama term will necessarily be a disaster for Israel. (We disagree on that.) The difference between the two candidates would be not so much on substance but on form and tone. The problem is, that in the Middle East, rhetoric does matter a great deal, so that the form takes on a substance of its own. __________ Sidebar: Now that I think about it, not just in the Middle East. You would be surprised how many Canadians take their news from Al-Jazeera and align their politics of anti-Americanism accordingly. Even people who believe that creationism is a kind of science, that Jesus is the only way to salvation, and that gay people are to be tolerated but not encouraged, root for Obama and hate Romney with a passion.

- Noga

November 3, 2012 at 9:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@ironyroad -- Didn't stuxnet show that a while ago? My take is they have been cooperating behind the scenes heavily thru out Obama's administration, but that level was not enough for Netanyahu (even if it may be sufficient for the majority of Israel's population).

- Wonderland

November 3, 2012 at 10:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" (even if it may be sufficient for the majority of Israel's population)." Considering Obama's low popularity levels in Israel, this statement would appear to be a fantasy by the aptly named poster: http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=290213 "An Israel Democracy Institute/Tel Aviv University Peace Index poll released this week found that when asked “in terms of Israeli interests, who would be preferable to win the elections next month in the US,” 57.2 percent of Israeli Jews said Romney, and only 21.5% said Obama."

- Noga

November 3, 2012 at 10:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga "Netanyahu has "acquired the wisdom" to cooperate with its most important ally in its confrontation with Iran." "Hard to imagine a more stupid and clueless observation." Noga is always having a hard time imagining stupidity. This is because she is too stupid to know what is stupid. Had she a clue she would't have posted her ridiculously stupid comment above" "If true, that means that at long last Obama has acquired the wisdom necessary to deal with Iran." This is grossly STUPID. Obama has been chastising and taking actions with Iran for some time now. Her premise is historically incorrect as one poster noted above: "Didn't stuxnet show that a while ago." Yes it did. Obama also put in place a strong embargo on the country. His sanctions have had a devastating effect on that country. Even Netanyahu acknowledged that. Yet the all wise, all knowing Noga takes is upon herself to pass judgement on Obama's wisdom. One would think that she had at least won some prize for being wise. The all "wise" Noga doesn't even realize that when a smaller country needs to aid of a larger one it's up to the smaller country to show some humility. This is what Netanyahu finally did. He acted according to his country's needs which shows that he and not Obama came to his senses in cooperating (instead of vilifying) the President of the US. For stupidity Noga should receive a Nobel. She is at least as dumb as some of the Nobel recipients in recent years. I am thinking of the "peace prize' which should be called the "duncish" prize.

- arnon1

November 3, 2012 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can't hear you. Too much noise, too little signal. Learn to express yourself without the adhoms, arnon. A little bit can be supportable. But you have no limitations, the mark of the fanatic.

- Noga

November 3, 2012 at 1:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I take no position in the above what-else-is-new contretemps but this is just to say (besides having eaten the plums) I like the casual diminutive "adhoms" and plan to use it.

- basman

November 3, 2012 at 1:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Don't know and don't care what you said, NOGA. This hypocrite, can read volumes on line when it suits her, but a 20 lines comment criticizing her is just too much. Poor deluded Noga. In your convoluted way you called me a "fanatic" coming from you, that's rich. It's also another example of your stupidity. As I said before fuck off. btw: this is the queen of adhoms as she calls it, yet attacks others for answering her adhoms. Another example of the deluded donkey.

- arnon1

November 3, 2012 at 1:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I remain deeply concerned about public opinion in Israel, as should all Americans, their views of President Obama in particular. Just as Israelis are very concerned about how the world, and Americans especially, view Netanyahu and Israel. They vote accordingly. I could not cast my vote (already voted absentee) without thinking to myself, "What would Israel want?" Of greatest concern to me is the opinion of the Israeli expat community, those who love Israel but cannot bear to live there.

- roidubouloi

November 3, 2012 at 1:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In terms of the American-Israeli relationship, I don't believe that in the longer term a Romney presidency would be better for the U.S. component, whatever about its utility to Israel. I think it would repeat the problem of the Bush administration in setting up a too-cozy relationship in which confusion over different core interests can trump the recognition of necessary distinctions even between close allies.

- ironyroad

November 3, 2012 at 1:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think, ironyroad, this more than anything explains why you are such an admirer of Obama's. You have actually just confirmed, with seeming approval, that Obama has succeeded in untangling Israel from America's foreign policy interests, and that in estimating the relative benefits between an alliance with Israel vis a vis an allliance with the Muslim world, he made the right choice.

- Noga

November 3, 2012 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But that makes no sense -- the tangling only happened during the Bush administration. There were many times before that, including under Bush 41, where there were disagreements and distinctions. In fact, one should qualify and say that even under GW Bush there was a period around 2004 when it looked like a new Palestinian-U.S. atmosphere might emerge (somewhat to Israel's chagrin) but the Pals dropped the ball as usual.

- ironyroad

November 3, 2012 at 2:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, you're implying an absurd false dichotomy in accusing Irony, in asserting it's important to recognize the distinctions in interests 'between close allies,' (a state which always exists, and is important to keep in touch with in order to analyze geopolitics accurately) has in so doing chosen 'alliance with the Muslim world,' of which he made no mention. What absurdity! And, by the way, this is also a straw man argument. So there's two fallacies you're guilty of: your reasoning is shoddy as all hell, and relies on assertions which are contrary to fact. So, I guess I know which posters to trust on this issue, now, or at least who to ignore.

- Curran1

November 3, 2012 at 2:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"In terms of the American-Israeli relationship, I don't believe that in the longer term a Romney presidency would be better for the U.S. component, whatever about its utility to Israel. I think it would repeat the problem of the Bush administration in setting up a too-cozy relationship in which confusion over different core interests can trump the recognition of necessary distinctions even between close allies." Irony has got it exactly right. Romney can't be trusted on any issue. Those who support him because they think he is pro Israel are as deluded now as they were when they supported Bush. It was Bush's policies that helped create an Iran with a lot more influence in the Mid East. These people William Krystal will never own up Anita me responsibility. They will double down on their accusations against Obama. They are too deluded to know what they have done.

- arnon1

November 3, 2012 at 3:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

While I prefer a thread on the topic (three Syrian tanks just entered the DMZ on the Golan Heights), I want to point out that the Obama campaign ads that micro-target "Jewish-Americans" has been focussed on 1) Iran, and 2) the close military and intel co-operation, which no one denies. The glaring omission that troubles many American voters of various religious backgrounds, is the Obama administration's (and apparently the Democratic Party) stubborn resistance to acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and his surrogates' talking point always deflects that by turning it into a discussion about relocating the US Embassy, which is NOT the issue. No American ally is really sure of what America will do if the missiles start flying at them. But, since Israel knows there are tens of thousands of missiles and rockets aimed at them, maybe we need one who is not so clueless as to schedule the official White House Hanukkah celebration almost two weeks early, on the 24th anniversary of the First Initifada.

- K2K

November 3, 2012 at 3:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Netanyahu hast he advantage right now but his reelection is not a sure thing yet. Israelis have a way of surprising people.

- arnon1

November 3, 2012 at 3:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting article. The attempt to ascribe this raid to Israeli American cooperation does not surprise me at all but I am skeptical. The view in Israel is that it was done without American prior assistance, cooperation and knowledge. Also I must agree with the prevalent opinion here that at this point in time, the election of Mitt Romney will not have any great influence on the events in the ME in general and Israel in particular. In relation to Iran I think that at the present time the re-election of Obama is actually more favorable for Israel and Israeli interests than Romney's. It wasn't so six or eight months ago but I believe it is now. Anyway, its good to see the old guard is still here. Typing away.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

November 3, 2012 at 3:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

".....maybe we need one who is not so clueless as to schedule the official White House Hanukkah celebration almost two weeks early, on the 24th anniversary of the First Initifada." And of course the scheduler knew that and did it because "Obama hates Israel." K@K you are a certified paranoid loony, what else is there to say.

- arnon1

November 3, 2012 at 4:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makover and others, let's never forget that it was the Bush administration that helped elect Hamas in Gaza.

- arnon1

November 3, 2012 at 4:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hello makover. While I agree that the raid on Yarmouk was not Israeli-American co-operation as Schanzer suggests, and, assuming it WAS an IAF attack, I have to think that the Americans tasked to AustereChallenge2012 may have been allowed to review the attack as a learning experience. It was quite an impressive mission, based on the few details that have been published. I imagine every fighter pilot in the US military would have loved to have been on that mission.

- K2K

November 3, 2012 at 4:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

btw, according to EUCOM, only 1,000 Americans are on Israeli soil during AustereChallenge2012. The other 2,500 participating in the bilateral exercise are on ships or in Europe. May they all enjoy shore leave in Haifa and Jerusalem.

- K2K

November 3, 2012 at 4:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon: Nobody will ever forget that. If Barbara Tuchman was still alive she would have to add this to her great work "The march of folly". But somehow I don't think that Obama's administration reaction to this fateful "elections" would have been different. Americans have a tendency to become blurry eyed at the sight of natives at voting pols. I understand that the Austere Challenge has been seriously downgraded. Till now the reason has not yet been disclosed. Who knows.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

November 3, 2012 at 4:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, makover, if Israelis remember that then surely they will also remember that it was Israel who helped Hamas come in its initial phase to gain traction among Palestinians, out of the miscalculation that concentrating on religion will ease off PLO's pressure. Errors in judgement that we pay for dearly now. "I understand that the Austere Challenge has been seriously downgraded. Till now the reason has not yet been disclosed. Who knows." A bang and then a whimper. Who knows indeed.

- Noga

November 3, 2012 at 5:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know which of the many history works by Tuchman you are referring. I hope it's not "Ship of Fools." That was written by the foolish anti-Semitic Katherine Anne Porter and the most foolish thing in it is the author's plot.

- arnon1

November 3, 2012 at 5:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Well, makover, if Israelis remember that then surely they will also remember that it was Israel who helped Hamas come in its initial phase to gain traction among Palestinians,..." That happened when in 1979. They won an elected power in Gaza in 2006 in an election which was demanded by the Bush administration. It's the US under a Republican President that allowed Hamas to come to power. This was as dumb as the Reagan and Bush administration helping the Afghanistan Islamic opposition arm themselves. Before them it was Zbigniew Brzezinski who initiated such a policy in 1979 the last year of Carter's Presidency. It was the Reagan administration that carried it out.

- arnon1

November 3, 2012 at 6:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"11/03/2012 - 4:55pm EDT | makover: arnon: Nobody will ever forget that. If Barbara Tuchman was still alive she would have to add this to her great work "The march of folly". ..." "The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam (1984)—A meditation on the historical recurrence of governments pursuing policies evidently contrary to their own interests. In addition to the two historical events referenced in the title, discusses the Catholic Church of the late Renaissance inciting the Protestant rebellion and Great Britain provoking the Americans to revolt." [copied from wiki] Seems reading comprehension and internet research are not in arnon's toolkit.

- K2K

November 3, 2012 at 6:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Charlie Wilson's War is a 2007 American biographical-drama film, recounting the true story of U.S. [Democratic] Congressman Charlie Wilson who partnered with CIA operative Gust Avrakotos to launch Operation Cyclone [1980], a program to organize and support the Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. The film was directed by Mike Nichols and written by Aaron Sorkin, who adapted George Crile III's 2003 book Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History."..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Wilson's_War

- K2K

November 3, 2012 at 6:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

[copied from wiki] of course, how else will the disabled man of means post anything. If it weren't for wiki K@K would be reduced to spitting, The fool.

- arnon1

November 3, 2012 at 6:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More wiki sourced posts by K@K. What a bore. Why read history: we have wiki and movies, that's enough.

- arnon1

November 3, 2012 at 6:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I just checked Tuchman's Table of contents on line and it's too bad she stopped in 1973. Had she continued till 2008 she would have included Bush's and his necons project to "democratize the Arab and Muslim world" in her example of modern folly.

- arnon1

November 3, 2012 at 6:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Had she continued till 2008 " What an odd conjecture, considering that she died in 1989.

- Noga

November 3, 2012 at 6:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga is mistress of the obvious. She lives in a ship of fools all be herself.

- arnon1

November 3, 2012 at 6:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga is mistress of the obvious. She lives in a ship of fools all by herself.

- arnon1

November 3, 2012 at 6:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What an odd conjecture, considering that she died in 1989." It's no conjecture since it was meant as a subjunctive proposition. Idiot Noga strikes again. Each time she posts she shows what a pretentious housewife she is. She needs the make believe drama of the internet to get through the day.

- arnon1

November 3, 2012 at 6:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We don't know enough to determine US complicity in the Israeli raid on the Sudan weapons factory. Obama is not a visceral friend of Israel, has been too cozy with the Muslim Brotherhood crowd, but US and Israeli interests seem to align often enough under his administration. Romney seems ill at ease and out of his depth on foreign policy, overly opportunistic in changing his public positions, so I'm not sure he's a significantly more reliable friend of Israel. David Ben Gurion on the White Paper in 1939, the Zionists "would fight the war as if there was no White Paper and fight the White Paper as if there was no war." So I expect to vote for Obama on account of his more liberal domestic policies and express vigorous disagreement where I differ with him on Middle East policies. This is a risk, but there's no way to avoid risk.

- amidut

November 3, 2012 at 6:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"So I expect to vote for Obama on account of his more liberal domestic policies and express vigorous disagreement where I differ with him on Middle East policies. " That's a very well articulated and clear principle, amidut. I remember a brilliant poster on the Charlie Rose message boards years ago who used to say the something similar: Vote for Bush; Impeach Bush.

- Noga

November 3, 2012 at 7:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I just read Tuchman's introduction to her book The march of folly and it's definitely not a book right wingers like Bill Krystal would endorse: she argues that not looking after the environment, not taking pollution (today she would say climate change) seriously is and example of contemporary folly. You can read it on Google, here, http://books.google.com/books?id=v5YlBtzklvQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false or on amazon.com.

- arnon1

November 3, 2012 at 7:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is, in any case, difficult to get a clear handle on how a Romney foreign policy -- in respect of Israel or anywhere else -- might shape up at all. As of the second presidential debate, it seemed to be more or less "What Obama's doing -- except it'll be me doing it. Yay!"

- ironyroad

November 3, 2012 at 8:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"For stupidity Noga should receive a Nobel. She is at least as dumb as some of the Nobel recipients in recent years. I am thinking of the "peace prize' which should be called the "duncish" prize." When did Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize? .......Well it was "recently".......Since Obama is your hero, do not insult him. Remember. When filthy mouth is on drive ,make sure brain is on gear. Assuming you have any brain, functional that is.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 3, 2012 at 8:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It's no conjecture since it was meant as a subjunctive proposition. Idiot Noga strikes again. Each time she posts she shows what a pretentious housewife she is. She needs the make believe drama of the internet to get through the day." Weakness in loosing an argument is no excuse to insult and being mysigonistic . Take control of yourself, or you will be going back to your old days of brainless behavior.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 3, 2012 at 8:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On Israeli security needs, Obama has done more than any American president before him. Bibi (no fan of Obama) and Ehud Barak said so. That’s enough for me. The rest is silly noise. I could care less that the president doesn’t schmooze with Bibi, who is very hard to trust. " Americans have a tendency to become blurry eyed at the sight of natives at voting pols." makover, would you rather not have the natives voting? Or is it that democracy is good for the natives only if their choice align with your interest?

- scrubby

November 3, 2012 at 8:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat, if we start charging politicians for a speech we don't like, where would it stop? And you know very well that most of the world, especially the Europeans, don't view that particular speech the way it is understood in the US and Israel.

- scrubby

November 3, 2012 at 8:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, the domestic choice is pretty stark for us Americans. Do we want a civilized country like Canada, with justice and order, or a Third World banana republic run by plutocrats and religious tub thumpers? I agree with Malahat that Ahmadinejad be charged with incitement to genocide. We should go on the legal offensive against Islamist Iran, which has violated all international norms. It is important to challenge their behavior and educate the international community. I don't quite share Irwin Cotler's faith in international law, but we should make our case anyway. Otherwise, if we are legally passive, Iran and other like-minded countries may succeed in inverting the meaning of international law.

- amidut

November 3, 2012 at 9:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I could care less that the president doesn’t schmooze with Bibi, who is very hard to trust" Certain notables like Bill Clinton did not get along with Bibi, but was friends with Arafat. Now comes BHO , no friend of Bibi, but intimate with Erdogan. Give specific examples why Bibi is very hard to trust. At the same time give specific examples of trust by Arafat and Erdogan. And do not forget that Bill Clinton, and Hillary, and BHO trusted Basher al Assad.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 3, 2012 at 9:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yes, malahat, "...charging Ahmadinejad with incitement to genocide before the ICC ..." is a good idea, and glad someoen else heard Romney say that. The next day, I was doing a bit of echo searching from that debate, mostly to figure out why Obama said "Israel" so many times, but also to see if Mali (another Romney point) got echo. Considering that the USA refuses to belong to the ICC, it was bold for any candidate to propose that. I appreciate Canada's leading-by-example on many issues. Yesterday, I read part 24 of a series on Mideast Oil at AsiaTimes - I had seen the title at RealClearWorld because it included "Apocalypse", but finally read it when I was catching up at ATimes. It was very detailed on the monarchies, that the GCC may expand to include Jordan and Morocco, with Saudis as hegemon, and the Sunni-Shi'a schism. Some points to ponder. The fluid re-alignments in real time are going to make any president's foreign policy different by January. Wild cards: Syria. all the Kurds. maybe the Bedouin. fwiw, I read Ezra Klein on Romney yesterday - about how Romney really is so data-driven that he will compromise to get the best solution done - trying to explain why he does not seem to have a core. If I extrapolate that to foreign policy, where Romney seems to have as many realists as neocon advisors, he IS confusing. otoh, I never underestimate anyone from a religious tradition of proselytizing on a global scale, e.g., Catholics, Baptists (India just settled a decades-long insurrection in Nagaland, where 75% of the appr. two million people are Baptist, which is more Baptist than Mississippi, a legacy of British missionaries. who knew?) The one time Romney was most genuine was when he spoke at Clinton'sGlobalInitiative on 9/25. I did not agree with his genuine love for free markets, but it is genuine, as is his optimism. I think "The West Wing" series is due for a re-appearance on cable regardless of who wins.

- K2K

November 3, 2012 at 9:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I thought UN Sec Ban ki-Moon publicly stated, in Teheran, that no nation can threaten to destroy another nation (member of the United Nations). Violates the Charter of the United Nations.

- K2K

November 3, 2012 at 9:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't see anyone arguing that Erdogan or or Arafat are/were trustworthy. They're both snakes. Bibi is, too (though he's currently the leader of a much closer ally than Turkey). He's a manipulative ex-PR man who's had corruption scandals (among them, trying to bring home very valuable gifts given to him in his capacity as Israel's head of government during his first term, something which is illegal in Israel, and most of the West). The leadership of Israel used to be honest (i.e. Ben Gurion, etc), but it's all been downhill since Rabin's scandal in the mid-80s. It is a sad story. I'd love to see some evidence somewhere, anywhere, that the Clintons or Obama 'trusted' Bashar (not Basher) Assad, leader of US strategic enemy Syria--i.e. the regime against which the Obama admin is thought to be complicit in secretly arming an opposition!

- Curran1

November 3, 2012 at 9:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Are you kidding me, Jaime? Even in Israel, very few trust Bibi. But the point I tried to make was that schmoozing is overrated. The important thing, for me, is making sure the security needs of Israel is met by the president. (Bibi himself vouched for Obama on that score.) Beyond that, politics and the chemistry of both leaders get involved. That could make for the kind of awkward interaction we are witnessing between the president and Bibi.

- scrubby

November 3, 2012 at 9:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is no reason to give a global stage to political melodrama by charging Achmedinnerjacket with hate speech as he is (1) likely to fade from public view anyway in Iran and (2) a likely hero-victim who could claim that Americans (or the West) just hate the idea of people they used to control doing their own thing. Presumably he would have the right to defend himself, and even if he says what for people here on TNR is nonsense it would still feed into so many "western/zionist imperialism" conspiracy stories that it would be counter-productive.

- ironyroad

November 3, 2012 at 10:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I agree with Malahat that Ahmadinejad be charged with incitement to genocide." I'm stunned by such naivete. Don't you know what kind of world you live in? What are the chances for this to happen?? Have you read Gunter Grass's "poems" about Israel and Iran? There is your sample of what Europe is willing to do for the Jewish state.

- Noga

November 3, 2012 at 10:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I'm stunned by such naivete. Don't you know what kind of world you live in? What are the chances for this to happen?? Have you read Gunter Grass's "poems" about Israel and Iran? There is your sample of what Europe is willing to do for the Jewish state." Grass doesn't speak for Europe any more than Gore Vidal spoke for America. Grass will probably join Vidal soon enough. Europe is a disunited frightened continent that doesn't have the importance it once did either politically or economically.

- nr106646

November 3, 2012 at 10:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"There is no reason to give a global stage to political melodrama by charging Achmedinnerjacket with hate speech as he is (1) likely to fade from public view anyway in Iran and (2) a likely hero-victim who could claim that Americans (or the West) just hate the idea of people they used to control doing their own thing." This is well put, though among the charges I assume would be the crimes he committed against his own people. I don't know that outside of self styled revolutionaries like Chavez and his supporters there would be much sympathy for him. Obama is better suited to indict him than Romney would be who didn't think that the US should have spent much time and money hunting for Bin Laden. Romney is a businessman and a salesman and if there is nothing to be gained from a transaction he won't be bothered to undertake it.

- nr106646

November 3, 2012 at 10:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bibi is very popular in Israel. He is trusted as a true leader that he really is. Bibi is greatly admired by the US Congress. Demonizing of Bibi has been a sport of the ultra left wingers, and they are losers at this game. Just look at Tom Friedman from the NYT, a shameless lier. Hillary, not too long ago said Bashar al Assad would bring modern changes to Syria. Nancy Pelosi embraced Assad with all her heart, so did Breszinski of sorrow Jimmy Carter memory. Prior to this, Bill Clinton and his sec of state Madeleine Allbraight kept courting the criminal Hafes al Assad father of Bashar . And so it goes while BHO befriends Erdogan and looks the other way while Kurds get killed all around. In spite of all the Kurds have been immensely successful in Iraq. And irony don't pull out your Chamberlain umbrella. Ahmadinejad is a criminal together with the Iranian mullahs.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 3, 2012 at 10:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I'm stunned by such naivete." Irony is not naive. All too often belligerent people are taken to be clever and those counselling caution are seen as naive when the opposite is truth.

- nr106646

November 3, 2012 at 10:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Are you kidding me, Jaime? Even in Israel, very few trust Bibi." That's not at all accurate. You don't understand how it works. Israelis by and large do not like Netanyahu (they call him Bibyahu and not out of affection), mainly due to his domestic policies of taxes and more taxes, cutting social benefits and kowtowing to the ultra religious sector's dislike of doing military service. However, and here is a big however, they trust him on foreign policy matters. There is no other leader around they can trust. Not even Ehud Barak. Certainly not Olmert, or the handsome actor guy whose name I forget and who is all pumped up to become political. Don't even mention Livni or Yechimovitz, the ladies in the crowd, whose names only bring forth snorts of derision. I think this lady's op-ed reflects rather faithfully the mood and winds in Israel: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12386#.UJXTLIa3csw ___________ Oh, btw, 06646, I was referencing something malahat wrote. Ironyroad's views of appeasement and keeping as low a profile as possible so as not to startle the sleeping dogs are familiar and no longer excite any response from me.

- Noga

November 3, 2012 at 10:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For the misinformed. Bibi is the head of the Likud party. And the poll below indicates a solid win for Bibi's party. The Israeli public trusts Bibi , so mend your opinion. Enough said. This is from YNET. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4300376,00.html The poll showed that in case Kahlon decides not to run, the Likud-Beiteinu would win 35 mandates, Labor – 24; Yesh Atid – 15; Shas – 13; Arab parties – 11; United Torah Judaism – 6; Habayit Hayehudi and National Union – 5; Meretz – 4, Ehud Barak's Independence -2 and Itamar Ben-Gvir and Arieh Eldad's party – 2.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 3, 2012 at 10:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" Ironyroad's views of appeasement and keeping as low a profile as possible so as not to startle the sleeping dogs are familiar and no longer excite any response from me." Was he counselling "appeasement?" What makes you so wise? You attack Icarus and roid and arnon and anyone who holds an opinion different from yours. You are not wise, you are just conceited.

- nr106646

November 3, 2012 at 10:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Herman Goering and the rest of the Nazi criminal regime charged at Nuremberg also had a visible public platform as a result of being prosecuted." Yes, but Germany was defeated. I would be for defeating Iran and putting their Mullahs and so called leaders, gangsters, really, but what good will it do just to announce that he is under indictment. The UN isn't going to arrest him and unless the US invades Iran the indictment would mean gornisht, less than zero.

- nr106646

November 3, 2012 at 11:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe, mal, but these Mullahs don't go very many places and when they do go somewhere it's usually to another Islamic enclave. As irony said, Ahmadinejad is not that important and he may be out of power soon any way. The power is in the hands of the mullahs. If it's going to mean something it's the top mullahs that need to be indicted along with the those leading the Hezbollah terrorist regime in that country. Ahmadinejad is not like Chavez who if he dies or is killed the whole regime would go with him. He is more like the leader of a fascist or communist country. It's the apparatus behind him that needs to be taken out. That's my view anyhow.

- nr106646

November 3, 2012 at 11:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To the best of my knowledge, one can't be indicted at the ICC for expressing opinions. I am in favor of a rigorous policy against Iran with regards to their nuclear ambitions and (potentially) to the stability of the current political regime. I am not, however, in favor of stupid ideas. It's crazy I know, but I have this thing against stupidity. As a broader theme, I'd say that it would be worth a lot more to have people like the current president tried at home by a new democratic Iranian legal system. But I'm not holding my breath.

- ironyroad

November 4, 2012 at 12:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seems like a sound assessment of the legal issues, and absence of precedent: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/10/mitt-romney-and-iran No wonder the idea of an indictment for incitement to genocide (which is a defined crime by the ICC) was posed in Canada per malahat's earlier link. nr10....is correct about the Ayatollahs being the ones in charge, which gets rather interesting because Persian Shi'a theology about Jews as a disease, a bacteria - started in the late 18th century. So, incitement to genocide has deep roots in the Shi'a theocracy that controls Iran today. I was just catching up on Lebanon's Daily Star about American policy in Syria. Feckless would have been a compliment, but at least the Daily Star knows the Arab Spring is now a hurricane (their word).

- K2K

November 4, 2012 at 1:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is there a link to where this particular incitement to genocide by Ahmadinejad is discussed or written about? I'm just being curious, not quarrelsome. The speech I had in mind was the "wipe Israel off the map" one, which wouldn't stand up in any court as incitement to genocide. There must be another one, right? Please, malahat, or anyone who knows, point me in the right direction.

- scrubby

November 4, 2012 at 1:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ahmadinajerk merely takes his cue from tradition. Shia Islam is profoundly racist. Iranian Jews lived a degraded existence under Islam until modern times. They were not allowed to use the same drinking water as Muslims. They were constantly subjected to degrading verbal and physical abuse and proscriptions on their right to respond to such. Ayatollah Sistani, the wonderful "liberal" in Najaf never shook hands with American military commanders.

- amidut

November 4, 2012 at 7:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat: It will not happen. Ahmadinejad is very popular in the Arab street. indicting him for threatening Israel with genocide will be there vastly unpopular in the Arab street. Somehow I don't see Obama doing anything at all that would upset the Arab street. Here is an example and a precedent of how it works: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2847.htm "Following the indictments issued against Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir, Arab Lawyers' Union president Sameh Ashour[2] headed a delegation that hastily flew to Khartoum, where he met with Al-Bashir and declared 'the Arab lawyers' solidarity with Sudan in confronting the plot against the Arab peoples.' He also expressed the union's readiness to fight the indictments and prove them wrong on the grounds that they violate international covenants and treaties. "The Arab Lawyers' Union said that the International Criminal Court's position represents flagrant violation of all the values, norms and principles of international law and human rights charters, and that what has occurred is conclusive evidence of the deterioration of the international community's institutions due to the U.S.'s control over them." Needless to say, the author of this piece is a voice in the desert. And Ahmadinejad is so much more popular with the Arabs then the Sudanese dictator. So from a pragmatic point of view, an from the perspective of political expediency, there will never be an indictment of Ahmadinejad nor of the Iranian ayatolahs should they decide to drop a little bomb on Tel Aviv. Canada's intentions are good and honourable but you should see how many voices here are absolutely livid with Harper for siding with Israel. Like I mentioned elsewhere, many Canadians derive their news from Al-Jazeera and their sentiments are aligned accordingly with those of the Arab street.

- Noga

November 4, 2012 at 8:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

today's email from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was to make it known that Haaretz endorsed Obama. No, I did not read it. Just thought it odd that Haaretz is being used by the DNC to influence America's election. Does this mean the New York Times is going to start endorsing in Israeli elections?

- K2K

November 4, 2012 at 8:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga, sorry I am answering such a late post but the story that "Israel created Hamas" is a myth. Hamas was established in late seventies, in a time when I was still doing reserve duties (mostly in the Gaza strip of all places). Israel was pressured to allow this creation and even support this (by guess who?) to allow for religious freedom of the Palestinians. irony, I really think that despite all the expressions of American president and presidential candidate to the contrary US will never take military action against Iran. Period. I think there will always be something to delay it, to postpone it and to justify doing nothing and talk, talk, talk and talk. In addition we all need to remember that US did not foresee that India, Pakistan and N. Korea crossed the nuclear threshold and I believe that they will be similarly misled about Iran. So I think that when the time comes Israel will be left alone to do the job. That's why I think that on the Iranian question at least, at this stage it really does not matter whether Obama is reelected or Mitt Romney is elected. I even think it would be easier for Israel to act under Obama's administration given his strong "I am not bluffing" statements. I agree with you that dragging Ahmadinejad in front of ICC is waste of time for all the reason you mention and others as well. In fact, the entire ICC is a waste of time. Omar Al-Bashir is a perfect example. Regarding Israeli election. Bibi is not liked but is respected and is a good politician. His opposition consists of pygmies. He and Lieberman win hands down.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

November 4, 2012 at 8:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Haaretz is in big trouble, credibility-wise, with Israelis after the recent kerfuffle, where it turned out that they published lies and slander as facts: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/haaretz-gideon-levy-and-the-israel-apartheid-canard/ The fact that they "endorse" Obama will not improve their status.

- Noga

November 4, 2012 at 9:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Makover: I recall reading a very different account. Here is a report that encompasses the two possibilities: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html ""When Israel first encountered Islamists in Gaza in the 1970s and '80s, they seemed focused on studying the Quran, not on confrontation with Israel. The Israeli government officially recognized a precursor to Hamas called Mujama Al-Islamiya, registering the group as a charity. It allowed Mujama members to set up an Islamic university and build mosques, clubs and schools. Crucially, Israel often stood aside when the Islamists and their secular left-wing Palestinian rivals battled, sometimes violently, for influence in both Gaza and the West Bank. "When I look back at the chain of events I think we made a mistake," says David Hacham, who worked in Gaza in the late 1980s and early '90s as an Arab-affairs expert in the Israeli military. "But at the time nobody thought about the possible results." Israeli officials who served in Gaza disagree on how much their own actions may have contributed to the rise of Hamas. They blame the group's recent ascent on outsiders, primarily Iran. This view is shared by the Israeli government. "Hamas in Gaza was built by Iran as a foundation for power, and is backed through funding, through training and through the provision of advanced weapons," Mr. Olmert said last Saturday. Hamas has denied receiving military assistance from Iran. Arieh Spitzen, the former head of the Israeli military's Department of Palestinian Affairs, says that even if Israel had tried to stop the Islamists sooner, he doubts it could have done much to curb political Islam, a movement that was spreading across the Muslim world. He says attempts to stop it are akin to trying to change the internal rhythms of nature: "It is like saying: 'I will kill all the mosquitoes.' But then you get even worse insects that will kill you...You break the balance. You kill Hamas you might get al Qaeda."

- Noga

November 4, 2012 at 9:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga, Just because Israel did not strangle the group in its' cradle does not mean it created it. I remember at the time a lot of pressure from various foreign NGO's including meddling by Carter's representatives. As the article you quote correctly points out, Hamas ascendance must be attributed mostly to Iran and to other, outside foreign sources. Your comments about Haaretz are well taken. Haaretz credibility regarding the Israeli Palestinian conflict has been destroyed long ago. Its Hebrew circulation is tiny. It's readership mostly foreign journalists. It's influence in Israel nil.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

November 4, 2012 at 9:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

""noga, Just because Israel did not strangle the group in its' cradle does not mean it created it"" I did not say Ïsrael ""created Hamas"". I said: "" it was Israel who helped Hamas come in its initial phase to gain traction among Palestinians, out of the miscalculation that concentrating on religion will ease off PLO's pressure. Errors in judgement that we pay for dearly now. ""

- Noga

November 4, 2012 at 11:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Shia Islam is even more racist than the Whites in South Africa were. In Iran Jews and some other minorities were not allowed to go out in the rain because the water could roll off their bodies and contaminate the drinking water. Their assault on Jews (Zionism) is part of that racism.

- arnon1

November 4, 2012 at 12:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SCRUBBY, I am sure there are documented translation of Ahmadinejad's call for the destruction of Israel. Here is one article on the issue put out by the Jerusalem Center for public Affairs. http://jcpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/IransIntent2012b.pdf The article is well documented. Take a look at its 52 references.

- arnon1

November 4, 2012 at 12:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I doubt Haaretz endorsed Obama in order to influence American Jews. Those people who do read Haaretz in the US will probably vote for Obama in any case. Most of us who will vote for Obama do not read Haaretz. I have as much use for Haaretz as I do for the Guardian or for Netanyahu for that matter. Noga posts her little posts on the assumption that people will behave according to her ideological notion on how people ought to behave.

- arnon1

November 4, 2012 at 1:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Israel did try to use Hamas as a foil to the PLO. This was early on and they stopped as soon as they learned what they really stood for. However, Hamas as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood would have survived without the help of Israel. Here Israeli policy was as erroneous as was US policy in Afghanistan after the Soviets invaded. Let's remember that the US also supported Stalin during WW2 on the ground that he was the lesser evil. Countries do that in times of crisis, they choose the wrong enemy. However, what was different with regards of Hamas taking over Gaza was that it was helped by Bush' policy of democratization pushed by the people who now support Romney. It's much more difficult to reverse policies (not impossible, though) than to reverse a tactical alliance with an organization (or country) in order t defeat a greater and more dangerous enemy.

- arnon1

November 4, 2012 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This story was published in the center right J. Post on in the leftist Haaretz: "Olmert: PM strengthening Hamas to deceive Israelis" http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=290448

- arnon1

November 4, 2012 at 1:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close