WarSclerotic

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

Barack Obama twists Israeli arms

While exploiting Israel’s ill-timed announcement of 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem for concessions to the Palestinians, Washington will keep the hullabaloo against Israel at top pitch until the Netanyahu government toes the line on Iran, debkafile‘s Washington sources report. This issue goes way beyond a campaign to unseat Netanyahu, in which Washington and Israeli elements have happily joined forces. The Obama administration is at odds on its Iran stance not only with Israel but Saudi Arabia, too,  as well as the moderate Arab regimes of the Middle East, none of whom buy its new line.
Had Netanyahu’s political reflexes been sharper, he could have removed the immediate pretext for the crisis, the Jerusalem housing announcement during vice president Joe Biden’s visit, by firing a couple of bureaucrats and apologizing on the spot. But that would not have averted the crisis.
The Obama administration failed to arrest Iran’s race for a nuclear weapon in months of diplomacy and was unable to persuade Russia or China to join stiff sanctions. Yet the US president is flat against any military action against Iran’s nuclear installations, and will stop at nothing to stop Israel taking matters in its own hands. It is hammering Jerusalem with the bluntest instruments in its diplomatic armory to a degree unheard of against a friendly government.
This four-day battering follows the failure of two top US officials, Biden in Jerusalem March 9 and defense secretary Robert Gates in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi March 10-11, to persuade US Middle East allies to accept the new Obama take on Iran, which consists essentially of letting Iran take its nuclear program forward while administering mild sanctions from time to time to keep it under control.
Neither the Saudis and their Gulf neighbors nor the Israelis trust in this strategy for keeping Iran from becoming a nuclear power, a standing which would in enhance the capacity of the most radical Middle East elements, Syria, Hizballah and the Hamas, for destabilizing the region and generating terrorism to an alarming degree. Israel and Saudi Arabia would be first in their sights.
Strengthening Iran as a player in the international energy market would also weaken America’s hand because Russia and China would have gained leverage as champions of the winning side with kudos for averting both military action and harsh sanctions against it.
Both Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arabs and Israel are aghast at this prospect and are therefore deeply reluctant to line up behind Barack Obama on Iran.
The US president is playing for high stakes. A White House which capitulated to Iran is hardly the slogan Democratic candidates need for their midterm race against Republican rivals. In fact, it could cost the Democrats their majority and even place Obama’s second term in jeopardy when he faces the electorate in 2013.
With this in mind, the White House is going hard after Israel and its government to force Netanyahu to line up behind the Obama line on Iran. The pressure from Washington will be unrelenting and the arrows keep coming day by day until Israel folds.
Washington cannot wield this battery against Riyadh. In fact Gates ended his mission to Riyadh on the receiving end of Saudi ire, a fact which both sides preferred to keep quiet, except for two telltale signs: No joint communiqué was released at the end of Gates’s visit to King Abdullah’s farm outside Riyadh and, second, the Saudis publicly repudiated Gates’ statement after his arrival in Abu Dhabi that he had obtained Saudi consent to come aboard US diplomacy on Iran and play its part by leaning hard on China to endorse sanctions.
On March 13, the royal house issued this bulletin: “This issue is not true, it was not discussed during the visit of the secretary of defense who was in the kingdom recently.”

Failing to make headway with the Saudis, the US administration is putting all its weight behind extracting from prime minister Netanyahu an unequivocal commitment to refrain from military action against Iran. This commitment could then be used to persuade Riyadh that there is no hope of a military solution for Iran’s nuclear threat  and that both Israel and Saudi Arabia must learn to live with a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic.

US ponders denying Israel arms needed for Iran war.

Press TV
Sunday, March 14, 2010

With Israel making apparent efforts to build a case for war on Tehran, the Obama administration reportedly considers denying Tel Aviv the military items needed for an attack on Iranian nuclear sites.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak had reportedly required the urgent delivery of a long list of US-made military equipment, including systems needed by the Israeli Air Force, certain types of missiles and advanced electronic war equipment; military sources told DEBKA on conditions of anonymity.

During a recent visit to Washington, Barak had reportedly criticized his hosts for stalling the delivery of the military items for the past three months, during which Israel was making preparations for a strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

It is absolutely essential for these items to reach Israel before a military flare-up occurred in the region, Barak said, to such extent that if they could not be supplied to Israel at short notice, they should at least be held ready in emergency stores in US bases in the Negev desert in Israel.

The Negev desert is home to Israel’s Dimona nuclear site, which is said to be the main source of plutonium for Tel Aviv’s nuclear weapons program.

DEBKA, which is closely affiliated with the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, said US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has refused to follow up on Israeli calls to this day.

In the US, Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League is shocked – shocked! – by the way the Obama administration has picked a fight with Israel over its plans to build more houses in east Jerusalem.

‘We are shocked and stunned at the administration’s tone and public dressing-down of Israel on the issue of future building in Jerusalem,’ ADL’s National Director Abe Foxman said in a statement… ‘US Vice President Joe Biden accepted the prime minister’s apology,’ Foxman said. “Therefore, to raise the issue again in this way is a gross overreaction to a point of policy difference among friends.

‘We cannot remember an instance when such harsh language was directed at a friend and ally of the United States,’ the statement continued. ‘One can only wonder how far the US 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.’

All the way, Abe, all the way. And just when Iran is in the verge of getting the nuclear bomb with which it is threatening to destroy Israel and America, too. Great time to throw Israel under the bus, huh?

And maybe that’s the real point. Maybe this is even worse yet than the shocked Abe Foxman thinks. Because it’s not just that Israel apologised for a diplomatic blunder. The key point is that there was actually nothing to apologise for, since it was explicitly agreed between America and Israel that, as a concession to kick-start peace negotiations, Israel would stop building in the West Bank although it would continue to build in east Jerusalem. Indeed, Hillary Clinton herself, no less, praised Israel for this agreement.

America has thus effectively unilaterally repudiated that agreement. In other words, this whole uproar has been artificially manufactured by America to produce a crisis with Israel – while refusing, astonishingly, to condemn the Palestinians at all for their refusal to enter peace talks, their honouring of one of their worst terrorists by naming a square after her, their violent attacks on the Temple Mount in recent days, and so on. As Noah Pollak speculates at Commentary, the most troubling conclusion is that America has provoked this crisis in order to stop Israel from attacking Iran because America itself will not stop Iran from getting the bomb:

I think it’s clear by now that Obama does not wish to make a confrontation with Iran part of his presidency. As I’ve written before, this means that Israeli security fears become a major problem for the administration: surely Obama realizes that one of his most important jobs is therefore preventing the Israelis from attacking.

How does one do that? Typically, the way the United States has alleviated Israeli security concerns is by affirming the closeness of the strategic relationship. But doing this on the Iran issue doesn’t work, for two reasons: 1) it would undermine Obama’s mission to the Arab world, which requires pushing the Israelis away; 2) and in the context of a nuclear Iran, it doesn’t really matter how close the U.S. and Israel are. The Israeli fear of the Iranian bomb is that one nuke would destroy the Jewish state, and that even in the absence of such a strike, Israel would be confronted with an emboldened Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas axis, more wars, constant (and credible) threats of annihilation, and over time would experience the psychological, demographic, and economic attrition of the country.

When we follow this logic chain to its conclusion, we find that Obama’s only option for restraining an Israeli attack is the one that we’re seeing unfold before our eyes: a U.S. effort to methodically weaken the relationship; provoke crises; consume the Netanyahu government with managing this deterioration; and most important, create an ambiance of unpredictability by making the Israelis fear that an attack on Iran would not just be met with American disapproval but also a veto and perhaps active resistance.

Well, folks, you read this all here a long time ago.

U.S. finally calls Mideast diplomacy by name – crisis – Haaretz – Israel News.

In retrospect, Vice-President Biden’s words at Tel-Aviv University (“I should probably be used to it by now, but I’m always struck every time I come back by the hospitality of the Israeli people”) sounded pretty ironic. Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon ended his visit to Washington on Thursday – a visit which coincided with the current crisis between Washington and Jerusalem, saying that “it’s my understanding that this incident is behind us”. Apparently, it only just began. In an interview both to NBC and CNN on Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the announcement to expand building in East Jerusalem “insulting’. Advertisement “It was not just an unfortunate incident of timing but the substance was something that is not needed, as we are attempting to move toward the resumption of negotiation”, she told NBC’s Andrea Mitchell. After mentioning the U.S. support of Israel?s security and the values shared between the two countries, she resumed discussion of the diplomatic incident. “It was insulting not just to the vice president, who certainly didn’t deserve that. He was there with a very clear message of commitment to the peace process and solidarity with the Israeli people. But it was an insult to the United States. The United States is deeply invested in trying to work with the parties in order to bring about this resolution. We don’t get easily discouraged, so we’re working toward the resumption of the negotiations. But we expect Israel and the Palestinians to do their part, and not to take any action that will undermine the chance to achieve a two state solution”. In an interview with CNN, Clinton explained that the U.S.-Israeli relations “are not at risk,” but later that “it was just really a very unfortunate and difficult moment for everyone – the United States, our Vice President, who had gone to reassert America’s strong support for Israeli security – and I regret deeply that that occurred and made that view known.” Secretary Clinton said she didn’t have any reason to believe Netanyahu knew about it, “but he is the prime minister. It’s like the President or the Secretary of State; when you have certain responsibilities, ultimately, you are responsible,” she said. One might expect that at her scheduled appearance at the AIPAC annual conference in Washington in slightly more than a week, Clinton might soften a bit to assuage the renewed bitterness that resulted from Biden’s visit, which was intended to provide exactly the opposite. “Did you mean something by ‘Bibi'”? At the State Department press briefing, Assistant Secretary Philip J.Crowley reported some of the details from Clinton?s phone conversation with Netanyahu, saying that she reiterated the administrations objection not only to the timing, but to the “substance” of the announcement as well. He added that the U.S. “considers the announcement a deeply negative signal about Israel’s approach to the bilateral relationship,” which “had undermined trust and confidence in the peace process and in America?s interests.” “The Secretary said she could not understand how this happened, particularly in light of the United States’ strong commitment to Israel’s security. And she made clear that the Israeli Government needed to demonstrate not just through words but through specific actions that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process,” said Crowley. The following question by one of the reporters, who asked whether Crowley meant something by addressing the Israeli prime minister merely as ‘Bibi’ (“Knowing that from the podium you all use your words very carefully, you referred to the prime minister as Bibi Netanyahu. Is that intentional? You’re not going to quote him using his full first name? You’re using a nickname, which could be seen as pejorative by some”) definitely provided some comic relief. But in general, the ‘c’ word that both the Obama administration and the Israeli government carefully avoided since the emergence of tensions finally broke loose – it is a crisis. The same settlements that grabbed attention when both the Obama administration and the Israeli government made their first steps, and later were swept under the rug, came back to haunt their relationship and the phantom peace process. Those in Washington dealing with the Middle East every now and then have a strong sense of dejavu, but the claim attributed to Netanyahu’s aides that the U.S. “initiated” this crisis will for sure drop some jaws in utter disbelief. Attack might be the best defense, but the way this incident develops will block any potential for meaningful negotiations – direct or mediated talks – for a long time. Here are some highlights from the discussion following the announcement: The Anti-Defamation League was “shocked and stunned by the Administration’s public dressing down of Israel by saying it had “undermined trust and confidence in the peace process, and in America’s interests”. The National Jewish Democratic Council is “proud of Vice President Joe Biden’s trip to Israel and all that it has accomplished, and we support him fully, including his frank and honest words delivered in response to the unfortunately-timed announcement of plans for new housing units made by Israel?s Interior Ministry.” U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.): “I urge the Administration to spend more time working to stop Iran from building nuclear bombs and less time concerned with zoning issues in Jerusalem. As Iran accelerates its uranium enrichment, we should not be condemning one of America’s strongest democratic allies in the Middle East.’ Daniel Levy from the New America Foundation: “In the absence of decisive American leadership, Israel is likely to dig itself deeper into a hole, burying the last vestiges of hope for pragmatic Zionism. And America too will not emerge unscathed. The president can give any number of Cairo speeches and appoint Sen. Mitchell as special peace envoy, Sec. Clinton can appoint Farah Pandit as representative to Muslim communities and Rashad Hussain as envoy to the O.I.C., but these officials had all better be given the cellphone number of the Israeli interior ministry, Jerusalem district planning and building department, because that office and others in Israel’s bureaucracy still have the deciding vote in framing America’s image in the region.” (http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/11/biden_netanyahu_and_papering_over_the_grand_canyon) Stephen P. Cohen, president of the Institute for Middle East Peace and Development: “This synchronicity can in no way be dismissed as happenstance or as a resoundingly bad-timing accident. It was intentional, and it was intended to deflate the significance of discussions with a man who has long been the most uncompromising pro-Israel figure in the Obama administration and one of the staunchest supporters of Israel in the Democratic Party and in the United States Congress.” Israeli Ministers Yishai and Lieberman are determined to prevent a revival of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, even though Netanyahu must realize at this point that he can no longer be passive and permissive about the actions and decisions of his more extreme ministers. If he remains silent and inactive in face of these actions, he will have forfeited his leadership.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-p-cohen/a-resoundingly-bad-timing_b_495756.html Some expert’s opinions at the New York Times: Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. negotiator for Republican and Democratic administrations, currently scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center: “If you’re hoping for an Israeli-American war, I wouldn’t bet on it”.. beyond some very tough words by America, don’t expect much more?. The administration has yet to figure out how to maintain America’s special relationship with Israel (which can serve U.S. interests), yet prevent that bond from becoming so exclusive that Israel acts without consequence or cost, and America has little independence of its own on peace process policies.” Amjad Atallah, director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation: “The United States has been sending its messages with carrots and great diplomatic restraint. The current Israeli government, in stark contrast, has been responding like a petulant child, outraged that it hasn’t been able to get U.S. acquiescence to its own short-term political strategy.There is a great deal at stake in this public and private dispute between Israel and the United States. President Obama should consider responding in a similar manner, by creating his own facts on the ground, and ending all forms of U.S. cover and support of the settlement enterprise and other policies that sustain the occupation.” David Makovsky, the Ziegler Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy: “It would be suicidal for Netanyahu to seek to sabotage such a friendly visit given Israel’s supreme interest in both of these issues. A deliberate move to undermine the Biden visit could fatally undermine Netanyahu’s efforts to improve ties with the Obama administration. Even Netanyahu’s biggest critics do not think he would act in a manner so counterproductive to Israel’s own concept of the national interest.. Something more practical is required: namely that Israelis and Palestinians reach a baseline agreement that neither party will expand into the neighborhoods of the other in East Jerusalem. This is more attainable than a freeze, and could avoid flashpoint incidents in the future.” P.S. In a book “Myth, illusions and peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East,” published last summer, which Makovsky co-authored with Dennis Ross, the two wrote: “…The U.S. at this point cannot afford to raise expectations again.” At this point, however, the question is more how low can these expectations go.

Obama’s new nuclear age doesn’t bode well for Israel – Haaretz – Israel News.
The custom is for every American president to put together a working paper that re-examines the government’s stance on nuclear weapons. The document is in effect a summary of the main principles of the incoming administration’s nuclear policy and a statement of the new president’s intentions on the future of America’s nuclear stockpile. Two presidents have produced such documents since the end of the Cold War: Bill Clinton in 1994 and George W. Bush in 2002. Now it’s Barack Obama’s turn to publish a statement that will set out his nuclear policy.

Expectations are especially high this time around. Since the beginning of his term, Obama has repeatedly declared his intentions to inaugurate a new and secure nuclear age. He laid out his plans last April in a speech to an enthusiastic audience in Prague. His statement that “as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility … to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons,” was greeted with applause. America must “put an end to Cold War thinking,” he said, hinting at his predecessor’s path.

But whoever expects Obama to lead the United States and the world into a new and optimistic nuclear age will be disappointed by the working paper’s details. A world without such weapons is a long way off, and despite announcements and promises, Obama’s policy is a direct continuation of Bush’s.

Paradoxically, the goals of U.S. strategy for using nuclear weapons actually widened after the Cold War, instead of narrowing. Clinton and Bush enlarged the aims of a nuclear attack to include the prevention of chemical or biological warfare on American soil, and even to target extra-governmental organizations.

While Obama said he intends to “reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy,” his government retains the right to use such weapons first. That is, just like his predecessors, Obama will not promise that the United States will not use nuclear force first. “Make no mistake,” Obama told the crowd in Prague. “As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies.”

Nonetheless, Obama committed the United States “to begin the work of reducing our arsenal.” But even a reduction of several thousand nuclear warheads will not bring him much closer to the goal of a nuclear-free world. The Americans have 9,400 such warheads, of which 2,126 are strategic (intercontinental). In the negotiations between Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on a follow-up agreement to dismantle nuclear weapons, the Americans agreed to cut the number of strategic weapons to around 1,500, but just a third of this amount is enough to destroy any potential Russian target.

This agreement does not include the 15,000 nuclear warheads that the United States and Russia have in storage as backup for weapons which are ready for operation. And the future of the approximately 480 nuclear bombs the Americans have put in six European NATO countries is unclear at this point. In addition, the Obama administration plans to budget $7.3 billion in 2011 for laboratory work connected to the American weapons stockpile, which does not seem to indicate an intention to disarm.

Whatever is written in the working paper that Obama signs, it seems that U.S. nuclear policy will not change and a nuclear-free world will remain a utopian vision for years to come. While Obama has good intentions, in a world with 23,000 nuclear bombs in the hands of nine states, good intentions will not suffice.

Regarding Iran, Obama does not intend to change the current policy of using diplomacy and sanctions to block Iran’s nuclear plans. This of course will not stop Iran; the American answer as it appears in the working paper is a defensive anti-missile system against the ayatollahs’ nuclear threat.

The American statement does not bode well for Israel.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

Ehud Barak meets Robert Gates in D.C.

Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu convened his inner cabinet Saturday night, March 12, to discuss the spiraling crisis with Washington and his first response.
debkafile‘s military and Washington sources report: The Obama administration is considering withholding from Israel military items urgently needed in case of a flare-up of hostilities with Iran. This would further ratchet up the mounting row over Israel’s decision to build another 1,600 homes in E. Jerusalem. The requests were filed by defense minister Ehud Barak as recently as Feb. 26, when he visited Washington and met defense secretary Robert Gates and secretary of state Hillary Clinton.
In an exceptionally harsh phone call to Netanyahu Friday, March, Clinton herself hinted at this possibility while administering a dressing-down on the East Jerusalem housing decision and its announcement during Vice president Joe Biden’s visit.
Reporting on that phone call, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley disclosed: “The secretary said she could not understand how this happened, particularly in light of the United States’ strong commitment to Israel’s security.”
Washington correspondents interpreted this as a threat to withhold items vital for Israel’s security unless the prime minister reversed that decision (which Palestinians now demand as the precondition for resuming peace talks).

Our military sources report that the Barak arms list is tailored to a potential four-front offensive against Israel launched by Iran and its allies. It includes systems needed by the Israeli Air Force, certain types of missiles and advanced electronic equipment. During his last visit, the defense minster complained the list had been pending in Washington for more than three months and the sands for a possible conflict were running out fast. He stressed that it was essential for these items to reach Israel before a flare-up occurred. The urgency was such that he suggested that if they could not be supplied to Israel at short notice, they should at least be held ready meanwhile in the emergency stores of the US bases in Israel’s Negev.

Gates promised Barak to study the list and let him have his answer in the coming days, but none has so far been received.
Some circles in the United States and many in Israel say the Obama administration is blowing the crisis up with deliberate intent.  American-Jewish criticism was led Saturday night by the Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman, who issued this statement: “We are shocked and stunned at the Administration’s tone and public dressing down of Israel on the issue of future building in Jerusalem
Defense sources in Washington reported Saturday the view that the Obama administration, which has never cultivated warm relations with the Netanyahu government, has seized on the Jerusalem housing spat as a device for restraining Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear sites, a step which the White House strenuously opposes.