EDITORS' NOTE: Reuters and other foreign media are subject to Iranian restrictions on leaving the office to report, film or take pictures in Tehran. Iranian soldiers march in formation during the Army Day military parade in Tehran April 18, 2011. 
 
 DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran makes no distinction between U.S. and Israeli interests and will retaliate against both countries if attacked, an Iranian military commander said on Wednesday. 
 
 The comments came after the White House denied an Israeli news report that it was negotiating with Tehran to keep out of a future Israel-Iran war and as U.S. President Barack Obama fends off accusations from his election rival that he is too soft on Tehran. 
 
 "The Zionist regime separated from America has no meaning, and we must not recognize Israel as separate from America," Ali Fadavi, naval commander in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, was quoted as saying by the Fars news agency. 
 
 "On this basis, today only the Americans have taken a threatening stance towards the Islamic Republic," Fadavi said. "If the Americans commit the smallest folly they will not leave the region safely." 
 
 Iran - which has missiles that could reach Israel and U.S. targets in the region - has conducted military exercises and unveiled upgraded weapons in recent months, aiming to show it can defend itself against any strike against its nuclear sites. 
 
 Israel - thought to be the only country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons - says the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran would pose a threat to its existence. Tehran denies it is developing weapons and says its nuclear program is peaceful. 
 
 With the approach of U.S. elections in November, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for a tougher stance against Iran - implicitly knocking Obama's emphasis on diplomatic and sanctions pressure to halt Iranian nuclear work. 
 
 While Israel would expect U.S. backing if it decided to strike Iran, the top U.S. general has suggested Washington would not be drawn into a conflict. 
 
 "I don't want to be complicit if they choose to do it," Britain's Guardian newspaper quoted Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey as saying. 
 
 Netanyahu abruptly ended a meeting of Israel's security cabinet on Wednesday, saying someone in the forum had leaked details of its discussions on Iran. 
 
 Any decision to go to war against Iran would, by Israeli law, require the approval of the security cabinet. One government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said no such decisions had been on the table at Tuesday's meeting. 
 
 (Reporting By Yeganeh Torbati; Editing by Robin Pomeroy) ||||| An Israeli attack on Iran would delay but probably not stop its nuclear programme, the most senior US military officer has claimed. General Martin Dempsey reinforced Washington's opposition to unilateral Israel military action as he made clear that US military chiefs were equally wary of getting ensnared in Syria. 
 
 In common with Nato's supreme commander, US admiral James Stavridis, who wrote about Afghanistan for the Guardian on Thursday, Dempsey put a brave face on the situation there. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff was speaking to journalists in London, where he attended the opening ceremony of the Paralympic Games as head of the US delegation. 
 
 Distancing himself from any Israeli plan to bomb Iran, Dempsey said such an attack would "clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran's nuclear programme". 
 
 He added: "I don't want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it." 
 
 Dempsey said he did not know Iran's nuclear intentions, as intelligence did not reveal intentions. What was clear, he said, was that the "international coalition" applying pressure on Iran "could be undone if [Iran] was attacked prematurely". Sanctions against Iran were having an effect, and they should be given a reasonable opportunity to succeed. 
 
 On Syria, he said, Washington was collaborating with the country's neighbours, sharing intelligence and helping with military planning. The US was supplying humanitarian aid to Turkey. 
 
 But Dempsey warned of the implications of establishing a "humanitarian zone" inside Syria, as suggested by others, including France, have suggested. Syria was not Libya, he said, there was no comparison. 
 
 Those who established a humanitarian zone would be obliged to assume responsibility for protecting it, Dempsey said. That would mean not merely establishing a no-fly zone but providing protection against Syrian missiles. 
 
 The US, like the UK, was supplying "non-lethal" aid to Syrian rebels. What he described as "any broader activities inside Syria" would have to be discussed and conducted within the Nato framework, Dempsey said. The worst-case scenario would be Syria ending up as a failed state, he said. He was reflecting growing concern in the west and elsewhere, including Russia, about the crisis allowing armed extreme jihadists and al-Qaida sympathisers with the opportunity to increase their influence and expand control across Syria. 
 
 In Afghanistan, the Taliban were using young men in "green on blue" attacks – attacks by Afghans in army uniform – as part of a new asymmetric weapon, as improvised explosive devices had been in the past, Dempsey suggested. 
 
 A rapid expansion of Afghan security forces from some about 200,000 to more than 300,000 in two years had "exposed vulnerabilities in vetting practices", he said. 
 
 Nato had to help develop Afghan forces to ensure Nato troops ended their combat role by the target date of the end of 2014, "and we will", Dempsey said. 
 
 Stavridis wrote that "measurable and substantial progress" has been made in Afghanistan in three specific areas. Firstly, Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorists, he said. Secondly, Afghan national forces have improved markedly over the past 18 months, "to the point where they are making significant gains in the fight against the Taliban". As a result, "this has been a particularly difficult summer for the insurgency, which has seen the elimination of two top-level commanders in the past few days alone". 
 
 Thirdly, the international community has made specific pledges on long-term partnerships with Afghanistan. 
 
 Stavridis said Afghan society was changing for the better every day, but acknowledged that the Nato-led coalition faced formidable challenges over the next few years. "I have no doubt that there will still be difficult days ahead."
– The US and Israel are in it together when it comes to Iran—whether the US likes it or not. Iran said today that it saw no difference between Israel and the United States, and that an attack by either would result in retaliation against both, Reuters reports. " We must not recognize Israel as separate from America ," a Revolutionary Guard commander told Iran's state-run news service. "If the Americans commit the smallest folly they will not leave the region safely." The comments come in the wake of an Israeli media report that the White House was negotiating with Iran to ensure it wasn't sucked into an Iran-Israel war. The White House denied the report, though US military officials have openly talked about their reluctance to back an Israeli attack. "I don't want to be complicit if they choose to do it," Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey recently told the Guardian.