And, as America shifts its primary strategic focus to Asia and reduces its military presence in Europe, President Barack Obama’s top two national security aides — attending an international security conference here together in a demonstration of Washington’s resolve — reassured the continent that it remains deeply relevant to U.S. interests as well as its partner of “first resort” in dealing with global hotspots.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Americans and Europeans must send a clear and common message to tyrants that they must respect the rights of their people. She spoke as violence flared anew in Syria ahead of an expected vote on a U.N. Security Council resolution on the matter later Saturday.

“As a tyrant in Damascus brutalizes his own people, America and Europe stand shoulder to shoulder,” she said, referring to Syrian President Bashar Assad.

“We are united, alongside the Arab League, in demanding an end to the bloodshed and a democratic future for Syria. And we are hopeful that at 10 a.m. Eastern Standard Time in New York the Security Council will express the will of the international community,” she said.

President Barack Obama, in a strongly worded statement Saturday, condemned Assad’s “unspeakable assault” and called for his ouster.

“Assad must halt his campaign of killing and crimes against his own people now. He must step aside and allow a democratic transition to proceed immediately,” the president said.

Clinton said, “Wherever tyrants deny the legitimate demands of their own people, we need to work together to send them a clear message: You cannot hold back the future at the point of a gun.”

While promoting democracy, she warned that Europe could not ignore backsliding in its own backyard, decrying limits being placed on press and religious freedoms. She did not identify trouble spots by name but was referring to Russia, Belarus and Hungary.

“It is not credible to preach democracy elsewhere unless we also protect it within our community,” she said. “The trappings of democracy are not enough.”

Clinton said she had no doubt that Europe would overcome its economic woes. But she said it was imperative for a common agenda and enhanced cooperation to reinforce recoveries on both sides of the Atlantic.

“We are confident that Europe has the will and the means to cut its debt, build the necessary firewalls, create growth, and restore liquidity and market confidence,” she said. But, she added: “As Europe emerges from crisis, we have to work harder to reinforce each other’s recoveries. As deep as our economic relationship is, it has not yet lived up to its potential.”

To boost the recovery, she said the United States and Europe need to team up to fight unfair trade practices.

Meanwhile, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Europe is America’s security partner of choice for military operations and diplomacy around the world. He said Europe will continue to be a central U.S. defense interest, even as the administration withdraws two of the four Army brigades stationed on the continent.

In his remarks to the conference, Panetta emphasized the positive. He noted that the U.S. is building a missile defense system in Europe, including a radar installation in Turkey and missiles to be stationed in Romania and Poland. He said four U.S. ships capable of shooting down missiles will be stationed at Rota, Spain.

And he said that while two Army brigades will leave Europe, that will be partly offset by a new arrangement in which smaller Army units will rotate to the continent for temporary training assignments. This was announced in January as part of a new U.S. defense strategy.

These changes, he said, amount to a U.S. “vote of confidence” in the future of NATO.

Panetta’s remarks were aimed at countering a perception that the administration’s added focus on security challenges in Asia and the Middle East is weakening U.S. partnerships in Europe.

“In all, the steps Europe can expect from the United States amount to a vote of confidence from Washington in the future of the alliance, especially in a period of fiscal austerity,” he said.

He noted that the U.S. military will still have a larger presence in Europe than in any other region of the world.

“That’s not only because the peace and prosperity of Europe is critically important to the United States, but because Europe remains our security partner of choice for military operations and diplomacy around the world,” he said.

The Obama administration has sought to limit the diplomatic fallout from its decision to pull the Army brigades out of Europe — a move in line with an overall shrinking of the Army from 570,000 soldiers to 490,000. One brigade is scheduled to pull out of Europe in 2013 and another in 2014.

Missile defense will become a central feature of the U.S. military presence in Europe. Officials in recent days confirmed that the missile defense system’s headquarters will be at Ramstein air base in Germany.

Panetta also spoke optimistically about the outlook for stability in Afghanistan, where the Taliban insurgency persists.

He said the U.S. hopes Afghan security forces will be ready to take the lead combat role throughout the country “sometime in 2013.” At that point, U.S. and NATO forces will shift to a support role, he said, while remaining prepared to engage in combat if necessary.

At the conclusion of the NATO defense ministers meeting he attended in Brussels on Thursday and Friday, Panetta said there is a broad consensus among the allies that 2013 should be the year for such a transition out of a lead combat role. But France takes a different view, arguing that international forces should withdraw all combat forces from Afghanistan next year.

Associated Press National Security writer Robert Burns contributed to this report.

AP

CAIRO

Egyptian police arrested 12 people, mostly Syrians, accused of setting the first floor of the Syrian embassy in Cairo on fire, according to Egyptian police Maj. Karim El-Fouli. Groups of Syrians outside the police station demanded the release of those detained, El-Fouli said.

About 100 people sat outside the police station, leading to a tense standoff with police, said Sumer Badr, a Syrian activist in Cairo.

Badr said demonstrators gathered because of the “massacre” in Homs. (The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an opposition activist group, had reported that more than 200 people were killed in the besieged city Homs. One activist told CNN the assault on Homs took place after dozens of soldiers from the Syrian army defected and fled into the city.)

Syrians in Cairo chanted, “Mubarak gone gone, Assad next next” — references to former Egyptian ruler Hosni Mubarak, who was ousted after a popular uprising last year, and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whom many Syrian protesters are demanding step down.

BERLIN

Thirty-one people broke through the locked doors of the Syrian embassy in Berlin, police said. The men — all Syrian or of Syrian decent — infiltrated the building, destroyed office furniture and displayed a flag out of an embassy’s office window, Berlin police said.

The intruders also spray-painted slogans on walls. Police arrived and detained all the men, who were later released.

WASHINGTON

A few dozen protesters gathered outside the Syrian embassy in Washington on Friday night. Some chanted, “shame, shame, shame on you.”

The demonstration was largely peaceful.

LONDON

About 150 protesters gathered at Belgrave Square, London’s Metropolitan Police said, and five people were arrested after gaining entry to the Syrian embassy in London.

Demonstrators gathered in London called for the ouster of al-Assad.

KUWAIT

A group of Syrian nationals as well as Kuwaiti citizens stormed Syria’s embassy in Kuwait early Saturday, damaging property in the building, the state-run Kuwait News Agency (KUNA) said.

The Kuwaiti Foreign Ministry condemned the incident, saying it was a “breach on Kuwait’s policy towards diplomatic missions in the country,” according to KUNA.

Both Syrian nationals and Kuwaitis were arrested, the agency said, but the exact number was not released.

TRIPOLI, Lebanon

A demonstration kicked off in northern Lebanon capital Tripoli on Saturday to protest the “massacre” that was committed by the Syrian forces in Homs Friday, National News Agency reported.

The report added that the protest took place in the presence of the Internal Security Forces ( ISF).

CNN, Agencies

Morocco circulated a revised draft on Thursday after Russian U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told a closed council session he would veto it if it were put to a vote on Friday with a phrase saying the body “fully supports” the Arab plan calling for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step aside, diplomats said.

A senior Western envoy, however, said that by the end of Thursday’s meeting the 15 ambassadors had agreed in principle on the new text, which includes the phrase “fully supports,” but that a final decision rested with national capitals.

First word from Moscow was that Russia’s leadership was not yet satisfied. Interfax news agency quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov as saying the draft was “not enough for us to be able to support it in this form.”

Churkin was expected to deliver Russian suggestions for further revisions later on Friday, diplomats told Reuters.

“We’ll take a look at what they propose,” a diplomat said, adding that there was “not much room for substantial edits.”

Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani told Al Jazeera television on Thursday that the Arab League would not accept any further concessions.

“The version which we have is the minimal which we can accept,” he said, adding that if Russia did not support the current version, it should use its veto.

Diplomats said Moscow was signaling that it did not want to veto the resolution, as Russia and China did in October to a European-drafted resolution condemning Syria. But envoys cautioned that the Russians would not hesitate to vote against a text they consider to be unacceptable.

The issue, they said, would likely be decided when U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov meet on the sidelines of the annual Munich Security Conference in Germany this weekend.

“This is now between the United States and Russia,” a diplomat said. “The rest of us are waiting to see whether they can reach an agreement.”

In Washington, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Clinton and Lavrov spoke on the telephone on Friday. They agreed that their U.N. delegations would continue working and the two would discuss the issue in Munich.

Envoys expected the resolution would not go to a vote before Monday, though a Saturday meeting remains a possibility.

“CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC”

Russia, a long-standing ally of and arms supplier to Damascus, has so far led opposition to Security Council action on Syria out of concern it could be seen as promoting “regime change” there or even lead to Libya-style outside military intervention in the conflict.

The current draft still says the council “fully supports” the Arab plan and diplomats said Russia would probably want that phrase changed. Several diplomats suggested that dropping the word “fully” might work, though it was unclear if the Qataris and other Arab states would accept that.

A senior U.S. official declined to predict what the final vote would be but suggested the majority of the council backed it. “We are cautiously optimistic that we will have a very strong show of support for this resolution,” the official said.

If Moscow votes for the resolution, it likely will be adopted unanimously, as China and Pakistan are expected to follow Moscow’s lead, U.N. envoys said. All other council members have already signaled they will vote for it.

An abstention from Moscow would allow the resolution to pass, although it would register a certain level of disapproval.

“My take is (the Russians) also realize that things have moved very fast in the last days, and that we might be in a kind of an endgame,” said the senior Western envoy, who asked not to be identified.

The United Nations says more than 5,000 people have died in attempts by Syrian government forces to crush 11 months of anti-Assad protests.

The latest draft includes changes made by Arab and European negotiators to meet some of Russia’s concerns. It calls for a “Syrian-led political transition,” does not criticize arms sales to Syria and leaves out some of the details of what the Arab plan entails, such as Assad transferring power.

Western envoys said they and the Arabs were trying to assure the Russians the resolution is not aimed at regime change in Syria or a precursor to foreign military intervention, as happened in Libya. The new draft makes clear that it cannot be used to authorize force.

The draft does not threaten Syria with sanctions, also rejected by Russia, but includes a vague reference to possible “further measures” in the event of Syrian non-compliance.

Reuters

And if anything is likely to replace “jobs, jobs, jobs” at the top of the list of campaign issues, it’s the arrival of a nuclear-capable Iran.

The report, the result of research by the Critical Threats Project at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, is careful to underscore that its findings assess “technical feasibility” only and do not delve into the question of Iran’s motivations behind its advancing nuclear program.

The report “does not assess Iran’s intentions to weaponize or to pursue break-out scenarios,” says Maseh Zarif, the Critical Threat Project’s Iran team leader. “It is intended solely to inform the policy community and the American public about the nature and progress of the Iranian nuclear program.”

Iran insists that its uranium enrichment program is aimed at producing fuel and materials for civilian power and medical research purposes. But the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Western powers, including the United States, suspect that Iran’s recent acceleration of uranium enrichment to about 20 percent purity suggests Tehran could be planning to “break out” as a nuclear weapons power.

In his report, Mr. Zarif says Iran would need 85 kilograms of about 20-percent low-enriched uranium to deliver the 15 kilograms of 90-percent high-enriched, or weapons-grade, uranium to build a bomb.

Using information gleaned from IAEA reports and other technical sources, Zarif says Iran could have the needed amount of 20-percent low-enriched uranium, which it is producing at two known facilities, Natanz and Fordow, by June. To convert that into the 15 kg of weapons-grade uranium needed for a bomb, would then take about another 10 weeks.

That is, if Iran decided to take such a “break-out” step. So far it is only known to be producing the 20-percent enriched uranium.

The Zarif report differs from the conclusions of other nuclear experts, some of whom have estimated Iran to be at least a year away from amassing enough fuel to provide the basis for an eventual nuclear weapon. Others have put a “break-out’ date even farther off, based on Iran’s known and repeated technical difficulties – not to mention the certain and virulent international reaction that any signs of a shift to producing high-enriched uranium would trigger.

But some researchers estimate that Iran could be even closer to the nuclear threshold than Zarif concludes.

Gregory Jones, in a December report for the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, said that an “all-out effort” by Iran could result in a bomb within two to six months.

Shifting from a technical appraisal to an analysis of “intentions,” Mr. Jones predicted that Iran would avoid that kind of reaction-causing “all-out effort” but would instead “continue on its current course, producing an ever growing stockpile of enriched uranium and carrying out additional research to produce non-nuclear weapons components.”

Jones also concluded that the debate over Iran’s intentions may be moot. “Though it could be many years before Iran becomes an overt nuclear weapon state,” he said, “it is already close enough to obtaining a nuclear weapon to be considered a de facto nuclear country.”

Zarif doesn’t make that kind of judgment in his report. But he does offer one conclusion that could resonate as US policymakers wrestle with the Iran issue over the coming months.

He says that all the measures taken by known and unknown actors against Iran since 2009 – economic sanctions, targeted killings of Iranian nuclear scientists and engineers, and computer viruses that have sent Iran’s uranium-enriching centrifuges spinning out of control – “have not significantly derailed the Iranian enrichment program.”

CSM

Washington hopes to convince Moscow not to stand in the way of the Arab League’s initiative, to be presented to the Security Council in New York on Tuesday, calling for Assad to transfer power to help resolve a bloody, 10-month-old crisis in Syria.

It remained unclear whether Russia, one of Syria’s few allies, would cast a veto or abstain when a vote on the European-Arab-drafted resolution is taken as early as this week.

Russia has accused the United States and other NATO countries of distorting a March 2011 council resolution on Libya to launch a bombing campaign that helped rebels topple the government of Muammar Gaddafi last year.

U.S. diplomats are now trying to convince Moscow that the objective of the U.S.-backed measure on Syria is not to justify future military action to oust Assad but instead to show international solidarity with an Arab-led political solution to end his bloody crackdown on the opposition.

“We’re hoping that Russia will listen to those in the region,” the U.S. official told Reuters. “We’re trying to convince the Russians that investing in Assad is bad for them, and I think they’re coming around to that. Assad is falling.”

But the official also said that even as the United States focused on a diplomatic path, it had no intention of taking the military option off the table altogether, noting that the goal remains “a peaceful political transition.”

Another senior administration official voiced doubt about the prospect that Russia’s new proposal for mediating Syria crisis talks would go ahead, since the Syrian opposition “has already reportedly rejected the idea.” However, Assad’s government has accepted Moscow’s offer.

STREET BATTLES

The diplomatic push came as street battles raged at the gates of Damascus, with Assad’s troops seeking to consolidate their grip on suburbs that rebel fighters had seized.

The White House said countries needed to accept that Assad’s rule was doomed and stop protecting him in the Security Council.

While insisting Assad was becoming “more and more desperate,” the first official acknowledged that the opposition remained militarily fragmented despite recent gains and was not ready to mount a Libya-style rebel campaign.

Washington and its allies have imposed sanctions but have shown no appetite for a military role in Syria, a key ally of U.S. foe Iran and long a pivotal country in the Arab world.

Russia and China vetoed a European-drafted resolution in October that condemned Syria and threatened it with sanctions.

The new draft resolution, obtained by Reuters, calls for a “political transition” in Syria. While it does not seek military action or U.N. sanctions against Syria, it does say that the Security Council could “adopt further measures” if Damascus does not comply with the terms of the resolution.

Russia has not explicitly threatened to veto the resolution, but has said the draft is unacceptable in its present form.

Russia may feel that abstaining from a vote on the draft resolution, which would enable it to pass, would be tantamount to tacitly supporting the ouster of Assad, whose government is one of the Russian arms industry’s top customers.

Analysts say Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin – who is running again for president and bitterly criticized the council resolution authorizing the NATO campaign in Libya, which Russia let pass by abstaining – wants to look firm in the face of Western pressure.

CT/Reuters

This deployment defied explicit Iranian threats to close the waterway. It coincided with an escalation in the West’s confrontation with Iran over the country’s nuclear ambitions.

European Union foreign ministers are today expected to announce an embargo on Iranian oil exports, amounting to the most significant package of sanctions yet agreed. They are also likely to impose a partial freeze on assets held by the Iranian Central Bank in the EU.

Tehran has threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation. Tankers carrying 17 million barrels of oil pass through this waterway every day, accounting for 35 per cent of the world’s seaborne crude shipments. At its narrowest point, located between Iran and Oman, the Strait is only 21 miles wide.

Last month, Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, commander of the Iranian navy, claimed that closing the Strait would be “easy,” adding: “As Iranians say, it will be easier than drinking a glass of water.”

But USS Abraham Lincoln, a nuclear-powered carrier capable of embarking 90 aircraft, passed through this channel and entered the Gulf without incident yesterday. HMS Argyll, a Type 23 frigate from the Royal Navy, was one of the escort vessels making up the carrier battle-group. A guided missile cruiser and two destroyers from the US Navy completed the flotilla, along with one warship from the French navy.

All three countries retain a permanent military presence in the Gulf, but a joint passage through the Strait of Hormuz by all of their respective navies is highly unusual. The flotilla will have passed within a few miles of the Iranian coastline.

A western official denied this was a provocative move intended to increase the pressure on Iran. The goal was simply to “illustrate international resolve” to guarantee free movement of shipping through a vital artery of the world economy, he said.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman confirmed that “HMS Argyll and a French vessel joined a US carrier group transiting through the Strait of Hormuz to underline the unwavering international commitment to maintaining rights of passage under international law.”

The spokesman added that Britain maintains a “constant presence in the region as part of our enduring contribution to Gulf security”. Royal Navy warships have been patrolling the region continuously since 1980.

Abraham Lincoln’s entry into the Gulf came in defiance of an explicit warning from Iran. Earlier this month, General Ataollah Salehi, commander of the country’s armed forces, threatened to respond with “full force” if any US carrier ventured into the region’s waters. “We don’t have the intention of repeating our warning, and we warn only once,” he said.

The Islamic Republic then held a naval exercise in the Strait of Hormuz. More Iranian military manoeuvres, code-named Exercise Noble Prophet, are expected in the waterway later this week.

Another carrier, USS Carl Vinson, has been in the Gulf and the surrounding region for several months. Abraham Lincoln’s arrival means a return to the two-carrier deployment that America has retained in the area for many years.

Each of these Nimitz class vessels carries a complement of fighter aircraft with more striking power than the entire Iranian air force. Their presence widens the options open to Western governments should Tehran attempt to retaliate for tighter sanctions by harassing international shipping lanes.

Iran could do so by laying launching attacks using warships or land-based anti-shipping missiles. Each of these threats could be countered using carrier-based aircraft.

However, officials believe that the balance of forces against Iran makes any such move against the Strait of Hormuz highly unlikely. Iran has an interest in talking up the possibility because this can raise oil prices and increase its own revenue at a time when its economy is in severe difficulties.

One official added that no government should dismiss these threats, pointing to Iran’s actual disruption of shipping in the Gulf in the late 1980s. Another option that would fall short of launching classic military strikes would be for Iran to lay mines in shipping lanes.

All US warships deployed in the Gulf, the Red Sea and the western half of the Indian Ocean are controlled by US Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain. The Royal Navy also has a small permanent staff based in the Gulf kingdom.

telegraph.uk

Tensions in the Gulf could reach a breaking point as a senior Iranian official said Iran would “definitely” close the Strait of Hormuz if an EU oil embargo disrupted the export of crude oil.

Mohammad Kossari, deputy head of parliament’s foreign affairs and national security committee, issued the warning in response to a decision by the European Union on Monday to impose an oil embargo on Iran over the country’s alleged nuclear weapons program.

“The pressure of sanctions is designed to try and make sure that Iran takes seriously our request to come to the table,” EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said.

However, with Washington’s decision to deploy a second carrier strike group in the Gulf, the EU’s attempt to pressure Iran economically could greatly increase the likelihood of all-out war in the region.

The Strait of Hormuz is the vital link between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.

It is also one of the most strategic chokepoints in the world when it comes to oil transit.

With world oil output estimated at some 88 million barrels per day in 2011, the US Energy Information Administration estimated that some 17 million of those barrels passed through the Strait.

If economic sanctions sufficiently pressure Iran to retaliate by closing down the Strait, nearly 20 per cent of worldwide oil trade would be impacted, resulting in a massive spike in global energy costs.

With over half a million regular forces and an additional 120,000 personnel in the country’s elite Revolutionary Guard, analysts believe the consequences of a US-led war against Iran would dwarf recent Western-backed military incursions the Middle East.

Thus far, the US decision to maintain two carrier strike groups in the region has been described as “a routine activity” by Iran.

US warships in the Gulf

But the vast US military buildup in the region, which was bolstered when the Pentagon dispatched an additional 15,000 troops to the neighboring nation of Kuwait, was only the latest step in an obvious attempt by Washington to strengthen its military capabilities in the region.

However since 1988, when the United States managed to destroy some 25 per cent of Iran’s larger naval capability during Operation Praying Mantis, Iran has spent the last two decades preparing its Revolutionary Guard naval forces to exploit the vulnerabilities of the United States’ larger conventional forces.

According to Revolutionary Guard commander Brigadier General Jafaari, “The enemy is far more advanced technologically than we are, we have been using what is called asymmetric warfare methods… our forces are now well prepared for it,” he said, as cited by Global Bearings.

Ultimately, the latest round of brinkmanship between Iran and the West may force Iran to the negotiating table over its uranium enrichment program.

However, the EU strategy of averting “chaos in the Middle East” by tightening the economic noose around Iran could spark the very conflagration it was ostensibly trying to avert.

RT.COM

In a Tehran supermarket, Ali and his wife, a well-to-do couple in their 40s, were filling cart after cart with bags of groceries, prompting a bottleneck at the counter. When asked by other shoppers why he was buying so much, Ali responded he was stocking up for “when the U.S. will come and bombard” the Islamic Republic.

“I mean it,” said Ali, who like many here would not give his last name. He pointed at other frowning customers. “Look at the faces of people here. They are worried.”

The U.S. and its allies suspect Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon, but Tehran insists its program is for solely civilian purposes. Earlier this month, Iran announced that it had begun to enrich uranium at a new underground bunker. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton condemned the decision, saying it put Iran “a significant step closer” to gaining the ability to produce weapons-grade fuel.

On Jan. 11, an Iranian nuclear scientist was killed in a Tehran car explosion, an act that Iran’s supreme leader says was orchestrated by U.S. and Israeli spy agencies. The killing came shortly after Israel’s military chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, warned that the Islamic Republic could expect “unnatural events” taking place in 2012.

Iran has threatened to respond by closing the strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s crude oil is shipped. The U.S. has said it will act to prevent such a move.

“I am worried about war,” Farkhondeh, 55, said as she shopped for vegetables in a Tehran street stall. “The enmity between Iran and West is far from over, and two sides do not seem to be willing to defuse tensions…. Why should I not be worried?”

Mohammad Davoudnejad, a Tehran butcher shop worker in his 30s, said he was concerned about the threat of military action but complained he couldn’t keep track of all the statements being made by various players because TV signals have been jammed.

“What do you think?” he asked. “I am not able to figure out who is saying what. BBC Persian at our home is jammed. I don’t know for sure whether to be worried or not.”

Sanctions combined with more diplomatic pressure appear to be Washington’s preferred formula for handling its row with Iran. But the U.S. and Israel have not ruled out the option of striking Iran’s nuclear facilities if diplomatic efforts fails to settle the dispute.

“No options off the table means I’m considering all options,” President Obama said in December.

But earlier this week, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, in an apparent bid to calm speculation about military action, said an Israeli decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities was “very far off.”

Many street vendors, meanwhile, fretted over bad business and an unpredictable future. Iran’s national currency, the rial, has plummeted against the U.S. dollar. The government recently banned black-market currency dealers from doing business.

“I’m increasingly losing my customers,” said a 55-year-old fruit and vegetable seller who gave his name as Akbar. “People are losing their purchasing power. Twenty years ago, after the eight-year-long war [with Iraq], there was a future, at least. We could predict and plan.”

Faribourz Raisdana, a reform-minded economist and analyst, dismissed threats of war and said things won’t go further than blustery language.

“I am not worried about war, as there is no evident tendency to want to wage war among officials from both sides,” he said. “There is a lot of rhetoric, but it’s not serious.”

LAT

In her first television interview since the 1999 divorce, to be broadcast tonight on Nightline, Marianne Gingrich, a self-described conservative Republican, said she is coming forward now so voters can know what she knows about Gingrich.

In her most provocative comments, the ex-Mrs. Gingrich said Newt sought an “open marriage” arrangement so he could have a mistress and a wife.

She said when Gingrich admitted to a six-year affair with a Congressional aide, he asked her if she would share him with the other woman, Callista, who is now married to Gingrich.

“And I just stared at him and he said, ‘Callista doesn’t care what I do,’” Marianne Gingrich told ABC News. “He wanted an open marriage and I refused.”

Marianne described her “shock” at Gingrich’s behavior, including how she says she learned he conducted his affair with Callista “in my bedroom in our apartment in Washington.”

“He always called me at night,” she recalled, “and always ended with ‘I love you.’ Well, she was listening.”

All this happened, she said, during the same time Gingrich condemned President Bill Clinton for his lack of moral leadership.

She said Newt moved for the divorce just months after she had been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, with her then-husband present.

“He also was advised by the doctor when I was sitting there that I was not to be under stress. He knew,” she said.

Gingrich divorced his first wife, Jackie, as she was being treated for cancer. His relationship with Marianne began while he was still married to Jackie but in divorce proceedings, Marianne said.

There was no immediate comment from Gingrich on his ex-wife’s allegations. Gingrich has said during the campaign he has “no relationship” with Marianne.

While she had been quoted earlier as saying she could end his career, Marianne Gingrich defended Newt’s ethics while he served in Congress and came under several ethics investigations.

“At the time, I believed him to be ethical,” she said in the interview.

The former Mrs. Gingrich says Newt began to plan a run for President at the time of the divorce and told her that Callista “was going to help him become President.”

In a statement to ABC News provided by the campaign, Gingrich’s two daughters from his first marriage said, “The failure of a marriage is a terrible and emotional experience for everyone involved.”

The daughters, Kathy Lubbers and Jackie Cushman said they would not say anything negative about Marianne and said their father “regrets any pain he may have caused in the past to people he loves.”

Marianne Gingrich said Newt has never expressed any such regrets or apologized to her.

Gingrich declined to comment to ABC News for this report, but told NBC’s Today Show Thursday morning he would not “say anything negative about Marianne.”

“Now, I’ll let my daughters speak for it… I’m not going to comment beyond that because I’m focused on the big issues that concern the American people, which are the current challenges we have, largely because of the failure of the Obama presidency,” he said.

ABC

While Washington has been talking tougher about Iran’s nuclear work and threat to block oil export routes out of the Gulf if hit with harsher sanctions, new U.S. measures adopted on December 31 gave President Barack Obama leeway on the scope of penalties on the Iranian central bank and oil exports.

Moshe Yaalon, Israel’s vice prime minister, contrasted the administration’s posture to that of France and Britain, which he said “are taking a very firm stand and understand sanctions must be imposed immediately.”

“In the United States, the Senate passed a resolution, by a majority of 100-to-one, to impose these sanctions, and in the U.S. administration there is hesitation for fear of oil prices rising this year, out of election-year considerations,” Yaalon told Israel Radio.

“In that regard, this is certainly a disappointment, for now.”

The Democratic president says he is determined to deny Tehran — which insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful needs only — the means to develop an atom bomb. His aides cast their sanctions strategy as a bid to work collaboratively with foreign powers and win over states that import Iranian oil without triggering price-boosting shocks to energy markets.

MIXED MESSAGES

The remarks by Yaalon, a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud party, appeared to jar with praise centrist Defence Minister Ehud Barak offered last month for what he described as Obama’s resolve against Iran.

Running for re-election in the face of Republicans who hold sway over big pro-Israel constituencies, Obama has sought to burnish his credentials as a friend of the Jewish state despite having frosty relations with Netanyahu.

In a phone conversation with the prime minister on Thursday, Obama “reiterated his unshakable commitment to Israel’s security,” the White House said. Both sides said the leaders’ discussion dealt with Iran and Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.

Reputed to have the Middle East’s only nuclear arsenal, Israel sees the makings of a mortal threat in Iran’s uranium enrichment and missile projects, and has threatened to resort to force if it deems diplomatic isolation of its foe a dead end.

The prospect of Israel worsening regional instability with a unilateral strike has stirred worry in war-weary Washington.

Obama’s top military adviser, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey, was due to make his first visit to Israel on Thursday.

Israeli media predicted Dempsey would seek to persuade his hosts not to “surprise” the United States on Iran. The U.S. embassy had no immediate information about the visit’s agenda.

Yaalon, himself a former top armed forces commander, said Israel should not “leap forward” to attack Iran.

“But Israel has to be ready to defend itself,” he said. “Let’s hope we do not arrive at that moment.”

Netanyahu sounded sanguine last week about the efficacy of big-power pressure on Iran, telling an Australian newspaper: “For the first time I see Iran wobble … under the sanctions that have been adopted and especially under the threat of strong sanctions on their central bank.”

Reuters