Coming Soon - War with Iran?

[ninakat]

SWIFT READY TO BLOCK IRANIAN BANK TRANSACTIONS
Cryptogon, 2-18-12

When I studied International Relations in college, we were taught that economic sanctions could be on par with, “Rockets and bombs,” as one professor put it, and potentially much worse. Questions about economic sanctions amounting to collective punishment and other violations of International Law are ignored by the perpetrators. These types of policies resulted in a holocaust in Iraq.

The only conclusion that I can draw from the news below is that the decision has already been made to militarily engage Iran and this is an attempt to cause Iran to lash out first. In the event that Iran doesn’t strike first, a false flag incident could be fabricated easily.

If SWIFT actually pulls the plug, I’d consider the fuse to be lit. Also, if SWIFT does it before 20 March, this is probably the real reason:

Last week, the Tehran Times noted that the Iranian oil bourse will start trading oil in currencies other than the dollar from March 20. This long-planned move is part of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s vision of economic war with the west.

“The dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme is nothing more than a convenient excuse for the US to use threats to protect the ‘reserve currency’ status of the dollar,” the newspaper, which calls itself the voice of the Islamic Revolution, said.

Via: Reuters:

Belgium-based SWIFT, which provides banks with a system for moving funds around the world, bowed to international pressure on Friday and said it was ready to block Iranian banks from using its network to transfer money.

Expelling Iranian banks from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication would shut down Tehran’s main avenue to doing business with the rest of the world – an outcome the West believes is crucial to curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

SWIFT, which has never cut off a country before, has been closely following efforts in the United States and the European Union to develop new sanctions targeting Iran that would directly affect EU-based financial institutions.

. . .

[ninakat]

So the media is demonizing Iran (duh!) and Matt Taibbi is here to rescue us with the "truth" that Ahmedinejad is a monstrous dick who shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Different flavors of kool-aid, m'dears... AKA limited hangout. But what did you expect from someone who buys the official 9/11 conspiracy theory?

Another March to War?
by Matt Taibbi

February 18, 2012 "Rolling Stone" -- As a journalist, there’s a buzz you can detect once the normal restraints in your business have been loosened, a smell of fresh chum in the waters, urging us down the road to war. Many years removed from the Iraq disaster, that smell is back, this time with Iran.

You can just feel it: many of the same newspapers and TV stations we saw leading the charge in the Bush years have gone back to the attic and are dusting off their war pom-poms. CNN’s house blockhead, the Goldman-trained ex-finance professional Erin Burnett, came out with a doozie of a broadcast yesterday, a Rumsfeldian jeremiad against the Iranian threat would have fit beautifully in the Saddam’s-sending-drones-at-New-York halcyon days of late 2002. Here’s how the excellent Glenn Greenwald described Burnett’s rant:

It’s the sort of thing you would produce if you set out to create a mean-spirited parody of mindless, war-hungry, fear-mongering media stars, but you wouldn’t dare go this far because you’d want the parody to have a feel of realism to it, and this would be way too extreme to be believable. She really hauled it all out: WMDs! Terrorist sleeper cells in the U.S. controlled by Tehran! Iran’s long-range nuclear missiles reaching our homeland!!!! She almost made the anti-Muslim war-mongering fanatic she brought on to interview, Rep. Peter King, appear sober and reasonable by comparison.

Like Greenwald, I was particularly struck by Burnett’s freak-out about Iran’s nuclear program, about which she said, “No one buys Iran’s claim that [it is] for peaceful purposes.” She then cited remarks by Director of Intelligence James Clapper, which, she said, “drove that message home.” But then she ran a clip with Clapper’s quote, which read as follows:

Iran’s technical advances . . . strengthen our assessment that Iran is more than capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon if its political leaders, specifically the Supreme Leader himself, choose to do so.

In other words, “If Iran were to decide to be capable of making nuclear weapons, it would be capable of making nuclear weapons.” Unless I'm missing something, that’s a statement that would be true of almost any industrialized country, wouldn't it?

Virtually all of the Iran stories of late have contained some version of this sort of rhetorical sophistry. The news “hook” in most all of these stories is that intelligence reports reveal Iran is “willing” to attack us or go to war – but then there’s usually an asterisk next to the headline, and when you follow the asterisk, it reads something like, “In the event that we attack Iran first.”

An NBC report Greenwald also wrote about put it this way: “Within just the past few days, Iranian leaders have threatened that if attacked, they would launch those missiles at U.S. targets.”

There’s a weird set of internalized assumptions that media members bring to stories like this Iran business. In fact there’s an elaborate belief system we press people adhere to, about how a foreign country may behave toward the U.S., and how it may not behave. It reminds me a little of a passage in Anna Karenina about the belief system of noblemen in Tolstoy’s day:

Vronsky’s life was particularly happy in that he had a code of principles, which defined with unfailing certitude what he ought and what he ought not to do… These principles laid down as invisible rules: that one must pay a cardsharper, but need not pay a tailor; that one must never lie to a man, but one may lie to a woman; that one must never cheat anyone, but one may a husband; that one must never pardon an insult, but one may give one, and so on.

We have a similar gentleman’s code, a “Westernized industrial power” code if you will, that operates the same way. In other words, our newspapers and TV stations may blather on a thousand times a day about attacking Iran and bombing its people, but if even one Iranian talks about fighting back, he is being “aggressive” and “threatening”; we can impose sanctions on anyone, but if the sanctioned country embargoes oil shipments to Europe in response, it’s being “belligerent,” and so on.

I’m not defending Achmedinejad, I think he’s nuts and a monstrous dick and I definitely don’t think he should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, but to me this issue has little to do with Iran at all. What’s more troubling to me is that we’ve internalized this “gentleman’s code” to the point where its basic premises are no longer even debated.

Once upon a time, way back in the stone ages, when Noam Chomsky was first writing about these propaganda techniques in Manufacturing Consent, our leaders felt the need to conceal – or at least sugar-coat – these Orwellian principles. It was assumed that the American people genuinely needed to feel like they were on the right side of things, and so the foreign powers we clashed with were always depicted as being the instigators and aggressors, while our role in provoking those responses was always disguised or at least played down.

But now the public openly embraces circular thinking like, “Any country that squawks when we threaten to bomb it is a threat that needs to be wiped out.” Maybe I’m mistaken, but I have to believe that there was a time when ideas like that sounded weird to the American ear. Now they seem to make sense to almost everyone here at home, and that to me is just as a scary as Achmedinejad.

[Spiro C. Thiery]

So the media is demonizing Iran (duh!) and Matt Taibbi is here to rescue us with the "truth" that Ahmedinejad is a monstrous dick who shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Different flavors of kool-aid, m'dears... AKA limited hangout. But what did you expect from someone who buys the official 9/11 conspiracy theory?

Another March to War?
by Matt Taibbi

February 18, 2012 "Rolling Stone" --blah blah blah...

You got that right, ninakat! Anybody who buys "American Exceptionalism" don't know "American History". Dude basically nullifies his entire criticism with the sentence you quoted.

[AlicetheKurious]

Matt Taibi is a monstrous dick and I definitely don’t think he should be allowed to publish his self-indulgent clangings in respectable publications, at least until he learns to spell Ahmadinejad. (Achmedinejad is the way Israelis would pronounce it: Akkkkhmedinejad, like Kkkkhamas).

[82_28]

Banking's SWIFT says ready to block Iran transactions

BRUSSELS/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Belgium-based SWIFT, which provides banks with a system for moving funds around the world, bowed to international pressure on Friday and said it was ready to block Iranian banks from using its network to transfer money.

Expelling Iranian banks from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication would shut down Tehran's main avenue to doing business with the rest of the world - an outcome the West believes is crucial to curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions.

. . .

As just a dude with no say, Iran's "nuclear ambitions" scare me exactly ZERO.

What I am afraid of is mass poverty, sadness, overall emotional breakdown in the populace. The upper middle class, the "small business owners" are feeling it in areas of past prospertity -- a prosperity that exists in some form to this day. However, we as lower middle class dwellers need worry about this development -- as any idiot that hangs out here, well knows.

We know where the problems lie, living in a country free to do business for a couple centuries now.

The least of this country's worries is anything that Iran can do to hurt us. In fact, I would welcome just a quick fucking nuke to everything so that life can move on on some other planet, sane, with life -- but sane. Human Earthlings fucked up.

I'm not nihilist. I am also not pro any kind of war. However, just put our shit out of our fucking misery. Nobody wins but the royalty, the church and the empire in these global endeavors. It shows in just our own personal relationships. Shit's fucked up and bullshit, but we remain.

How much more pain and fear can any of us take?

I am very tired of it and it is wearing me out. . .

[Bruce Dazzling]

So the media is demonizing Iran (duh!) and Matt Taibbi is here to rescue us with the "truth" that Ahmedinejad is a monstrous dick who shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Different flavors of kool-aid, m'dears... AKA limited hangout. But what did you expect from someone who buys the official 9/11 conspiracy theory?

Another March to War?
by Matt Taibbi

Arthur Silber made the same point.

Like all of his posts, it's better to read it at his site.

Hardhitting, Dissenting Journalism -- Without the Hardhitting, Dissenting Part
FEBRUARY 18, 2012
Arthur Silber

In a recent essay, I mentioned Matt Taibbi as one of the examples of a phenomenon I call "The Obedient Dissenter," and said I would be examining that phenomenon in further detail soon. This isn't that lengthier analysis, but more in the nature of a sneak preview.

Taibbi posted this entry yesterday: "Another March to War?" His remarks deal with the major media's warmongering about Iran and the distortions they rely upon. All true, and all old news to those who've been awake however briefly in recent years. Note what he drops into the middle of his discussion:

I’m not defending Achmedinejad, I think he’s nuts and a monstrous dick and I definitely don’t think he should be allowed to have nuclear weapons...

He shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons? Ahmadinejad is going to stock all those terrible nuclear weapons in his very own personal Closet of Worldwide Destruction? And then, some night when he's had a few too many drinks or because he's pissed off about not getting his favorite dessert, he's going to haul out a missile and hurl it at some unsuspecting country? And he shouldn't be allowed to have these weapons? Who's going to enforce that prohibition, Taibbi -- you and what military? Oh, that's right: that would be the United States military.

In this manner, Taibbi reduces the most consequential matters of international relations to questions of personality -- thus throwing open the door to all the gutter language used by every warmongering propagandist, all the talk of Ahmadinejad being the "new Hitler," the embodiment of evil and so on. Taibbi even helpfully includes his entirely unsupported and extraordinarily dangerous opinion that Ahmadinejad is "nuts." Way to fight the power, Taibbi!

Thus does Taibbi accept all the assumptions and premises of those he says he is criticizing. Thus does he concede the battle before the first shot is fired.

But that's not the worst thing in his post. Taibbi discusses what he calls "a weird set of internalized assumptions" that form the basis for much of the media's coverage, a sort of "'Western industrial power' code." He describes the operations of that code this way:

[O]ur newspapers and TV stations may blather on a thousand times a day about attacking Iran and bombing its people, but if even one Iranian talks about fighting back, he is being “aggressive” and “threatening”; we can impose sanctions on anyone, but if the sanctioned country embargoes oil shipments to Europe in response, it’s being “belligerent,” and so on.

Taibbi then hauls out one of the hoariest of lines: wasn't there a time, he wonders, a sort of Paradise Lost, when Americans "genuinely needed to feel like they were on the right side of things, and so the foreign powers we clashed with were always depicted as being the instigators and aggressors, while our role in provoking those responses was always disguised or at least played down"?

And he concludes:

But now the public openly embraces circular thinking like, “Any country that squawks when we threaten to bomb it is a threat that needs to be wiped out.” Maybe I’m mistaken, but I have to believe that there was a time when ideas like that sounded weird to the American ear. Now they seem to make sense to almost everyone here at home, and that to me is just as a [sic] scary as Achmedinejad.

A translation of these gibberings would seem to be required. Wasn't there an idyllic period of comparative innocence, asks our babe in the woods, when the lies were better? When the lies weren't quite so transparent? No, Taibbi, there wasn't.

We might mention the lengthy slaughter of Native Americans by the European settlers. It wasn't precisely a secret that the Native Americans were already here -- I mean, they were here and the settlers were slaughtering them in huge numbers. It also wasn't a secret that we pushed the Native Americans into smaller and smaller areas -- and continued to slaughter them. It is also fairly well-known -- at least, I had thought it was -- that the general attitude of the new arrivals was: "How dare these primitive barbarians resist when we kill them!" And we proceeded to kill almost all of them.

And we might mention the centuries during which the European settlers enslaved vast numbers of human beings, after first forcibly importing them to these shores under unimaginably brutal conditions. We could discuss the unending evils of the institution of slavery -- and we might note that, whenever those who were enslaved rebelled against the evils imposed on them, the attitude of many Americans was: "How dare these subhuman beasts protest against their enslavement!" Of course, the Americans who lived in the Paradise Lost imagined by Taibbi killed huge numbers of slaves, while condemning the rest to lives of terror and unending cruelty.

Or we might mention America's deliberate instigation of the Mexican-American War, and the manner in which the same propaganda techniques we see today were used in the middle of the nineteenth century. I discussed all this in a post from November 2006. That entry offered excerpts from Hampton Sides' book, Blood and Thunder: An Epic of the American West. Sides writes:

The mission on which Kearny led the Army of the West [in 1846] had no precedent in American history. For the first time the U.S. Army was setting out to invade, and permanently occupy, vast portions of a sovereign nation. It was a bald landgrab of gargantuan proportions.

...

Realizing that neither diplomacy nor outright bartering would achieve his expansionist ends, Polk was determined to provoke a war. He dispatched Gen. Zachary Taylor to disputed territory, between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, in southern Texas. It was an unsubtle attempt to create the first sparks. In April 1846, Taylor's soldiers were fired upon, and Polk was thus given the pretext he needed to declare war.

"American blood has been spilled on American soil," Polk spluttered with righteous indignation, neglecting to mention that Taylor had done everything within his power to invite attack, and that anyway, it wasn't really American soil--at least not yet. Mexico had "insulted the nation," the president charged, and now must be punished for its treachery, beaten back, relieved of vast tracts of real estate it was not fit to govern.

The simple truth was, Polk wanted more territory. No president in American history had ever been so frank in his aims for seizing real estate. ...

Perhaps to dignify the nakedness of Polk's land lust, the American citizenry had got itself whipped into an idealistic frenzy, believing with an almost religious assurance that its republican form of government and its constitutional freedoms should extend to the benighted reaches of the continent then held by Mexico, which, with its feudal customs and Popish superstitions, stood squarely in the way of Progress. To conquer Mexico, in other words, would be to do it a favor.

We might also mention America's deliberate and carefully calculated decision to embark upon an overseas Empire -- with the annexation of Hawaii, followed by the occupation and war in the Philippines.

And so on and so forth. In "The Slaughter of the Diseased Animals," I described this repeated pattern. In discussing the torments inflicted by Israel on the prisoners of Gaza, I wrote:

We might also mention America's deliberate and carefully calculated decision to embark upon an overseas Empire -- with the annexation of Hawaii, followed by the occupation and war in the Philippines.

And so on and so forth. In "The Slaughter of the Diseased Animals," I described this repeated pattern. In discussing the torments inflicted by Israel on the prisoners of Gaza, I wrote:

This preview turned out to be longer than I had anticipated. Taibbi made it necessary -- for he is not merely "mistaken" (pity the poor child). Rather, he appears to have missed all of American history, as well as the stratagems utilized by the powerful throughout all of history whenever they seek to increase their power still more.

But Taibbi tells us he "ha[s] to believe" in the Eden of his concocted fantasy, and that he "ha[s] to believe" in an America that never existed then and that has never existed at all. That is because he has absorbed every critical element of American exceptionalism, and he seems to lack even the faintest understanding of the false set of beliefs to which he clings so desperately.

So Taibbi is inexorably led to call Ahmadinejad "nuts," and to proclaim that this "nut" must "definitely" not be "allowed" to have nuclear weapons. The propagandists in the media and in Washington are laughing with delight, for they could not ask for more. With opposition and dissent like this, they can begin the next war this afternoon, and nothing will stand in their way.

But some of us are not laughing. No, we most certainly are not.[/quote]

[ninakat]

^^^ That was excellent. Thanks Bruce. A couple of choice bits:

And he shouldn't be allowed to have these weapons? Who's going to enforce that prohibition, Taibbi -- you and what military? Oh, that's right: that would be the United States military.

. . . Thus does Taibbi accept all the assumptions and premises of those he says he is criticizing. Thus does he concede the battle before the first shot is fired.

. . . [Taibbi] has absorbed every critical element of American exceptionalism, and he seems to lack even the faintest understanding of the false set of beliefs to which he clings so desperately.

So Taibbi is inexorably led to call Ahmadinejad "nuts," and to proclaim that this "nut" must "definitely" not be "allowed" to have nuclear weapons. The propagandists in the media and in Washington are laughing with delight, for they could not ask for more. With opposition and dissent like this, they can begin the next war this afternoon, and nothing will stand in their way.

[ninakat]

Iran Holds Air Defense Drills As IAEA Says Iran Blocks Access To Key Nuclear Site
Zero Hedge, 2-21-12

As if the market needed another bizarro catalyst to ramp even higher courtesy of an even more pronounced drop in corporate earnings courtesy of soaring energy costs, that is just what it is about to get following news of further deterioration in the Nash equilibrium in Iran, where on one hand we learn that IAEA just pronounced Iran nuclear talks a failure (this is bad), and on the other Press TV reports that the Iran army just started a 4 day air defense exercise in a 190,000 square kilometer area in southern Iran (this is just as bad). The escalation "ball" is now in the Western court. And if Iraq is any indication, after IAEA talks "failure" (no matter how grossly manipulated by the media), the aftermath is usually always one and the same...

. . . we hope our readers stocked up on gasoline. Because things are about to get uglier. And by that we mean more expensive. But courtesy of hedonic adjustments, more expensive means cheaper, at least to the US government.

[Ben D]

I suppose the Iranians want to keep the 'enemy' on their toes, but it is a move in the direction of realizing that war may be inevitable...

Iran threatens preemptive action

February 21, 2012 -- Updated 1358 GMT (2158 HKT)

(CNN) -- Iran warned Tuesday it would strike against an "enemy" threatening it if needed to protect its national interests -- even if the enemy didn't attack first.

Gen. Mohammad Hejazi, a deputy head of Iran's armed forces, said his country "will no more wait to see enemy action against us," according to the semi-official Fars News Agency.

"Given this strategy, we will make use of all our means to protect our national interests and hit a retaliatory blow at them whenever we feel that enemies want to endanger our national interests," Hejazi said.

Netanyahu calls top US general a servant of Iran

Published: 21 February, 2012, 22:49

US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey made news over this week by calling an Israeli-led attack on Iran foolish if attempted anytime soon. Israeli officials aren’t impressed, however, and are responding with words of their own.

Gen. Dempsey denounced a strike on Iran in the near future as “destabilizing” and “not prudent” over the weekend while speaking to CNN in regards to America and Israel’s effort to prevent Tehran from developing a nuclear warhead. Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has now addressed that statement himself, calling into question the US official’s intentions.

Netanyahu is now suggesting that the US is adopting policies that will favor Iran, and not their historical ally: Israel.

Israeli newspaper Haaretz (“The Land”) is reporting that PM Netanyahu had harsh words for the JCOS commander, saying that his on-the-record comments over postponing any strike are remarks that “served the Iranians.”

“The Iranians see there’s controversy between the United States and Israel, and that the Americans object to a military act. That reduces the pressure on them,” a senior Israeli official adds to the paper.

[ninakat]

I don't own a teevee for a reason. My withdrawal is so complete that I won't pollute my beautiful mind by watching scum of the earth treated with respect, a la Tucker Carlson, in the video linked below.... but it's just more verification of the extent to which the MSM is now demonizing Iran, not just the government, but apparently the entire citizenry. "deserves to be annihilated?" Oh my fucking god, can it get any darker than this? By clicking the link below, you agree not to hold this humble messenger accountable for any brain damage incurred. My brain is popping just reading the words below.

Presstitute: Tucker Carlson Calls For Annihilation Of Iran

Carlson tells Red Eye panel that Iran "deserves to be annihilated. I think they're lunatics, I think they're evil."

[Nordic]

I know it's somehow wrong, and politically incorrect, but I have to say Tucker Carlson deserves to get his ass seriously kicked for that shit. I mean he needs to literally be throttled.

[Ben D]

Hmmm....

Report: US troops in Yemeni island for Iran war

Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:32AM GMT

A report has revealed that thousands of US troops have arrived in the Yemeni island of Socotra for a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The troops built up comes a few months after the announcement of the creation of a US Army base near Yemeni waters, Islam Today website reported.

This is while Yemen had said that it rejected a deal with Washington for having a temporary military base in the island.

Socotra, which is situated 80 kilometers east of the Horn of Africa and 380 kilometers southeast of the Yemeni coastline, lies athwart the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

The United States has been quietly building giant air force and naval bases on Socotra since 2010 with facilities for submarines, intelligence command centers and take-off pads for flying stealth drones.

The secret Socotra facilities are never mentioned in any catalogue listing US military facilities in this part of the world, which include Jebel Ali and al-Dahfra in the United Arab Emirates; Arifjan in Kuwait; and al-Udeid in Qatar.

The US and Israel have repeatedly threatened Tehran with the "option" of a military strike, saying Iran's nuclear program may include a covert military aspect, a claim strongly rejected by Tehran.

Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has never found any evidence indicating that Tehran's civilian nuclear program has been diverted towards nuclear weapons production.

[Searcher08]

As an ecological aside, Socotra is an absolute ecological treasure house and has been described as an Indian Ocean version of the Galapagos.
http://www.vpnaccounts.com/yemen-attrac ... sland.html

[DrVolin]

A well timed coup in the Maldives always broadens your strategic options in the Indian Ocean.

[seemslikeadream]

U.S. Considers New Message on Iran

By CAROL E. LEE and JAY SOLOMON

WASHINGTON—Complaints from Israel about the U.S.'s public engagement with Iran have pushed the White House to consider more forcefully outlining potential military actions, and the "red lines" Iran must not cross, as soon as this weekend, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Iran's navy fired a missile during exercises in the Strait of Hormuz.

President Barack Obama could use a speech on Sunday before a powerful pro-Israel lobby to more clearly define U.S. policy on military action against Iran in advance of his meeting on Monday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, these people said.

Israeli officials have been fuming over what they perceive as deliberate attempts by the Obama administration to undermine the deterrent effect of the Jewish state's threat to use force against Tehran by publicly questioning the utility and timing of such strikes.

The Israeli leader has told U.S. officials that he wants Mr. Obama to outline specifically what Washington views as the "red lines" that Iran cannot cross, something the administration is considering as it drafts the president's speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and sets the agenda for his meeting with Mr. Netanyahu.

Senators' Letter to Obama

View Document

Some administration officials said that if Mr. Obama decides to more clearly define his red lines, he is likely to do it in private with Mr. Netanyahu, rather than state it in his AIPAC speech.

Mr. Netanyahu and other top Israeli officials also are pressing for Mr. Obama to publicly clarify his insistence that "all options are on the table" in addressing the Iranian nuclear threat.

Mr. Netanyahu recently conveyed his displeasure with the administration in separate meetings in Jerusalem with National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and a group of U.S. senators, said people involved in the meetings.

He complained that comments by senior U.S. officials have cast Israel as the problem, not Iran, and only encouraged Tehran to press ahead with its nuclear program by casting doubt over the West's willingness to use force.

Enlarge Image

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
Iranian soldiers performed exercises in the Sea of Oman in December.

Israeli officials were particularly alarmed when Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described Iran as a "rational actor" in a CNN interview after a recent visit to Israel.

The Israelis made clear in these meetings that Mr. Netanyahu intends to press Mr. Obama on the two points as the two allies more closely try to align their strategies to contain Tehran's nuclear threat.

"The Israelis are unnerved," said Sen. Lindsay Graham (R., S.C.), who was one of five U.S. senators who had lunch with Mr. Netanyahu last Tuesday in Jerusalem. "They think the administration is sending the wrong signal, and I do too."

Mr. Graham, a staunch Israel supporter, added: "The president needs to be reassuring to the Israelis that the policy of the United States is etched in stone: we will do everything, including military action, to stop a nuclear-armed Iran. I hope the administration when they talk about 'all options' will better define what those options are. We're getting too far into the game to be overly nuanced now."

Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), who also was in the meeting with Mr. Netanyahu last week, said he had never seen an Israeli leader "that unhappy."

"He was angry," Sen. McCain said. "And, frankly, I've never seen U.S.-Israel relations at this point."

The March 5 meeting between Messrs. Netanyahu and Obama is part of a critical week of diplomacy and politicking in Washington that could affect not only the standoff with Iran, but also Mr. Obama's re-election campaign. U.S-Israel relations have been rocky since both leaders took office in 2009. Mr. Obama's often frosty relationship with Mr. Netanyahu has degenerated at times into public spats between the two sides, raising concerns among the president's Jewish supporters.

The annual AIPAC conference, which comes just days before a series of state votes on Tuesday in Republican primaries, is seen as a crucial venue through which to win Jewish support. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have all been invited to address the group, and Mr. Netanyahu will speak the day after his meeting with Mr. Obama.

Mr. Obama will use his AIPAC speech to stress that his administration has developed deeper defense and intelligence-sharing ties with Israel than any other U.S. president, administration officials said. Seeking to build on his speech at the United Nations General Assembly last September, as one senior administration official put it, Mr. Obama will also remind Jewish voters at AIPAC that the U.S. stood up for Israel when the Palestinians sought to unilaterally claim statehood through a vote at the U.N. Security Council last fall.

The president also will outline the significant steps Washington has taken in recent months to increase Iran's economic and diplomatic isolation through sanctions, officials said, and stress both the need to give those efforts time to work and the administration's belief that there still is room for diplomacy.

Mr. Obama will repeat that his policy of also leaving all options on the table, including military force, remains, officials said. Aides are discussing what it would mean to go into greater detail. They are expected to make a decision later this week.

Administration officials acknowledge that Republican candidates believe they have an opening to attack Mr. Obama as weak in support of Israel as well as soft on confronting Iran. And because of the recent tensions in U.S.-Israel relations, the president's aides are approaching this moment carefully.

"We have more to prove," said one senior administration official.

Iran has proven to be a divisive issue for the two allies for months. Mr. Netanyahu was skeptical about Mr. Obama's initial efforts to engage Iran's theocratic government diplomatically in a bid to contain its nuclear program. And the U.S. and Israel have developed differing red lines to gauge the nuclear threat.

Israel has defined its red line as Iran's development of a nuclear weapons "capability," rather than the actual assembly of an atomic weapon. The U.S. has cited the latter and American officials continue to argue that the West still has a few years to dissuade Tehran from developing a bomb.

Last week, the United Nation's nuclear watchdog announced that Tehran had more than tripled its monthly production of the purer form of enriched uranium that is closer to weapons grade.