Could it be that this kerfuffle is not over negotiations but over Iran. Perhaps Obama is looking for a way to prevent Israel from bombing Iran?
Both Bush and Obama have played footsies with Iran in the hope of getting her cooperation in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The price tag is obviously, letting Iran get the bomb. But then Iran’s cooperation will end.
The chess-masters of Tehran have played a single combination for the past five years: threaten America’s flanks in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to gain control of the center of the board, that is, by pushing on with a nuclear program that many suspect is designed to acquire nuclear weapons.
Iran has sufficient assets in the territory of its troubled neighbors to make a shambles of America’s Potemkin village. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki may be able to govern Iraq with a third of the seats contested in the March 7 parliamentary elections, provided that Iran’s allies such as Shi’ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr permit him to do so. And the appearance of Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in Kabul on March 10 to declare his solidarity with Afghanistan’s beleaguered President Hamid Karzai planted Iran’s flag in the midst of Afghan politics.
Iran will succeed, unless another player kicks over the chessboard. Israeli officials report that American officials are visiting Jerusalem - including Vice President Joseph Biden last week - to warn Israel against launching an attack on Iran. “They’re not talking about the Palestinians, they’re only talking about Iran,” commented the head of one Israeli political party.
That explains the exceptionally harsh, even adversarial tone that Washington has taken towards Israel, supposedly in response to last week’s go-ahead for 1,600 apartments in East Jerusalem, but evidently in anticipation of an Israeli attack on Iran.
Reuters quoted an unnamed American official warning that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s position was “perilous” because of alleged divisions in his government over negotiating with the Palestinians. United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s March 12 statement seemed disproportionate that the East Jerusalem construction was “a deeply negative signal about Israel’s approach to the bilateral relationship and counter to the spirit of the vice president’s trip”. And the Israeli news site Debka.com, which frequently carries intelligence community leaks, reports that Washington is threatening to withhold weapons from the Israelis.
Considering that Obama faces congressional elections in five months and well may lose control of both houses, the lady may protest too much. Obama may be in a lot more trouble than Netanyahu.
The Obama administration’s shrill tone towards Israel reflects its domestic political weakness as much as its strategic problems. According to a March 7 poll by The Israel Project, Americans take the Israeli side against the Palestinians by a margin of 57% to 7%, with the rest neutral. A Gallup Poll released February 28 gives the margin at 63% to 15%, with 23% neutral. Only 30% of respondents told Gallup that they expect a peace agreement between Israel and the Arab states.
More to the point, 60% of respondents in a March 2 Fox News poll said they believed force would be required to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, while only 25% believe that diplomacy and sanctions will work. Fifty-one percent of Democrats and 75% of Republicans polled favored the use of force. Obama’s job approval for handling Iran was at only 41%, with 42% disapproving.
An Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would polarize American opinion. And if the Obama administration attempted to punish Israel for doing what most Americans seemingly want to do in any event, the balance of American sentiment - if available polling data are any guide - would shift away from Obama and to Israel. Obama’s party would pay at the polls in November.
No one cares about the Palestinians; to the extent that the charade of Israeli negotiations with the weak and divided Palestine Authority comes into consideration, it is because Washington still hopes that a show of progress might be helpful in addressing more urgent concerns in the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. Obama’s investment in rapprochement with Iran is not a sentimental gesture: it is the pillar on which American regional policy rests.
Despite the enormous difference in outlook between the last administration and the present one, there is an underlying continuity in Washington’s stance towards Iran, due to the facts on the ground put in place by Iran itself. I wrote on this site in October 2005, shortly after Ahmadinejad came to power:
- I do not believe any formal understanding is in place, but the probable outcome is that Washington will refrain from military action to forestall any Iranian nuclear arms developments, while Tehran will refrain from disrupting Washington’s constitutional Potemkin Village in Iraq. Tehran thinks strategically, as befits a country with a government newly elected by an overwhelming majority, while Washington thinks politically. President George W Bush is struggling to persuade the American public of the wisdom of his nation-building scheme in Iraq, and badly wants the Iranians to keep their hands in their pockets. Iran is prepared to do so as long as America keeps its opposition to its nuclear program within the confines of the diplomatic cul-de-sac defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency. (See A Syriajevo in the making?, Asia Times Online, October 25, 2005)
Spengler versus V. D. Hanson: Two smart guys disagree.
This week two smart analysts differed over Iraq. Mr. Hanson (who is generally right on) sees the Iraq cup as half-full. He says it was worthwhile for Bush to overthrow Saddam Hussein despite it enabling Iran, because Iraq is about to emerge as a “neutral” democratic country free of Iranian control.
Spengler (who is also generally right on as well as being Jewish) sees the Iraq cup as half-empty. He feels it was a horrible waste of American blood and treasure to get rid of Saddam Huseein only to replace him with a crazy nuclear Iran which indirectly controls an Iraq which will become ever more of an enemy to America.
I vote with Spengler on Iraq. I disagree with him that Obama is trying to suck up to Iran at all costs. I believe that Obama is trying to manouever Israel and Iran into a fight in which one or both are destroyed, and America is able to pick up the pieces.
So should Israel play Obama’s game? They have no choice. If Obama is purposely allowing Iran to develope a nuke to use against Israel, then Israel will have to pre-empt at whatever cost (and things will then probably get very ugly very fast).
Comment by Samuel Fistel — March 15, 2010 @ 6:31 pm
If Obama wants to turn those poll numbers against Israel, a series of unsubstantiated allegations will do the trick.
Israel should go it alone, thereby eliminating the need to depend upon the fickle winds of public opinion.
Comment by ayn reagan — March 15, 2010 @ 7:06 pm
A pig has more balls than BB and Barack
Comment by yamit82 — March 15, 2010 @ 7:22 pm
Saddam Huseein was a threat. Iran is a threat. Anyone can only speculate if things are better now than they would have been if Saddam had been left in power. The answer is probably yes and no with the sum of it all uncertain. If things are in plus or minus territory since Saddam, is something that can be reasonably argued from either side.
They may both be right. . .and both be wrong, if you consider that when the glass is half full, it is also half empty.
Comment by RandyTexas — March 15, 2010 @ 8:35 pm
In fact, this is the B-Side title of Slim Whitman’s 45 rpm classic, “Rose Marie”:
“When the glass is half full,
It is also half empty.
Soon, Ma will be out on parole.
When the glass is half full,
It is also half empty.
She’ll be gunnin’ for the Highway Patrol…”
Comment by ayn reagan — March 15, 2010 @ 9:30 pm
Shut up
RJC expresses deep concern over Obama administration Israel policy
Washington, D.C. (March 15, 2010) — The Republican Jewish Coalition said today that it was deeply upset by the tone and actions of the Obama administration regarding Israel in recent days.
RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said:
The Obama administration has used harsh and intentionally undiplomatic language to exacerbate tensions with our ally Israel in the wake of Vice President Biden’s visit there. The strident and unwarranted escalation of tension, which has turned a minor diplomatic embarrassment into a major international incident, has raised serious concerns about the administration’s Israel policy from a variety of mainstream voices.*
Now Israeli sources report that the administration is pressuring Israel not only to halt construction in Ramat Shlomo but to make a “confidence-building” concession such as releasing hundreds of Palestinian prisoners (presumably terrorists) or turning over additional West Bank areas to Palestinian control.
We believe the administration’s actions are disproportionate and one-sided. It should be noted, there has been no similar official U.S. condemnation of any Palestinian action, including recent rioting on the Temple Mount and official Palestinian plans to name a public square for a female terrorist responsible for the worst single terror attack on Israeli soil.
Moreover, the administration’s stance is dangerous to the best interests of the U.S. and Israel. By distancing ourselves from our most important strategic ally in a troubled region, an ally with which we have strong and necessary joint military, intelligence, security, and trade agreements, we weaken the United States. By taking the role of the Palestinians’ negotiator in the guise of an “honest broker” and advancing Palestinian demands that should be the subjects of direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, not their preconditions, the administration is seriously weakening the security of Israel.
A report in the Politico that Vice President Biden, speaking to Prime Minister Netanyahu behind closed doors, explicitly linked Israeli housing policy with the safety of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is also of great concern. It demonstrates the false linkage between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the war on terrorism often used by Israel’s enemies to undermine Israel’s legitimacy and efforts for security and peace.
We call on the Obama administration to halt immediately its unwarranted pressure against Israel, to take steps to heal the dangerous rift it has created between the two countries, and to return to the policy of its predecessors in supporting Israel’s security and well-being as an important strategic ally.
Notes* Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren has called it “the worst crisis in 35 years.”
ADL National Director Abe Foxman said, “We cannot remember an instance when such harsh language was directed at a friend and ally of the United States. One can only wonder how far the U.S. is prepared to go in distancing itself from Israel in order to placate the Palestinians in the hope they see it is in their interest to return to the negotiating table.”
AIPAC called the “escalated rhetoric of recent days” a “distraction from the substantive work that needs to be done,” and called on the administration “to take immediate steps to defuse the tension with the Jewish State.”
Democratic Congresswoman Shelley Berkeley (D-NV-01) called the administration’s moves “an irresponsible overreaction” and “overwrought rhetoric designed to appease Palestinians politicians…”
The Wall Street Journal editors wrote, “Our enemies get courted; our friends get the squeeze. It has happened to Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras and Colombia. Now it’s Israel’s turn.”
Even the Washington Post reported, “Relations with Israel have been strained almost since the start of the Obama administration. Now they have plunged to their lowest ebb since the administration of George H.W. Bush.”
###
This RJC statement appears on the RJC web site at:
http://www.rjchq.org/Newsroom/newsdetail.aspx?id=dac3002d-1cd6-4bcf-91ab-1ca0da6f453c
Comment by yamit82 — March 15, 2010 @ 9:49 pm
Asshole Duck Hunting
Comment by yamit82 — March 15, 2010 @ 9:55 pm
It’s better to be Herod’s pig than his son
Comment by yamit82 — March 15, 2010 @ 10:01 pm
Jews united against Obama
All 30 ministers of Netanyahu’s government, including the Labor, expressed their support for continuing construction in East Jerusalem.
The White House demands a construction freeze in extremely rude terms.
Comment by yamit82 — March 15, 2010 @ 10:03 pm
Jewish women withstand firebombs
Palestinians tried to set a civilian Israeli bus on fire with Molotov cocktails near Schem. One Jewish woman was wounded “lightly,” as the media were quick to point out.
While the EU is busy condemning Israel for imagined war crimes, every day Palestinians try to set Jewish cars and buses on fire.
Comment by yamit82 — March 15, 2010 @ 10:05 pm