WarSclerotic

Israel must prepare for nuclear terror threat – Haaretz – Israel News.
Nuclear terrorism is one of the gravest threats to the world’s security – so says United States President Barack Obama, who recently convened an international conference on the issue. In Israel, sunk in its own troubles, nuclear terrorism has elicited little interest until now. Beyond the dimensions of the threat, nuclear terrorism poses two unique problems in terms of deterrence. One is that the elements liable to employ nuclear terrorism are nihilist in nature – they are prepared to pay any price for Israel’s destruction and are therefore not given to deterrence. The other is the absence of an “address” for purposes of deterrence and retaliation.

Nuclear terrorism is liable to be employed against Israel with the aim of causing unprecedented destruction, deterring it from offensive moves like striking at the Iranian atom or defeating Hezbollah and Syria, imposing diplomatic-security dictates, weakening its national strength, and more. Hezbollah and Hamas, extremist though they may be, have thus far evinced a clear ability to weigh advantages and disadvantages in their conduct, i.e. characteristics of a “rational player,” and therefore are apparently given to deterrence. Most observers believe that Iran, too, is basically “rational” and given to deterrence.

However, the ability to employ nuclear terrorism is liable to change those patterns of action and, above all, there is the problem of nihilist elements like Al-Qaida, which has operated intensively to obtain a nuclear capability and presumably is continuing to do so today. Clearly, Israel should act on the diplomatic and intelligence level, on its own and in cooperation with the United States and other countries, to foil any possibility of the threat emerging. The main question is how it should act if it finds out that a plan to develop a nuclear terrorism capability already exists or has reached an advanced and even operational stage.

	Advertisement

In face of these possibilities Israel must adopt a tough and unambiguous deterrence policy. It has to be clear to all that Israel will act immediately, without restraint and with all the means at its disposal, both against those directly involved and against those who are only suspected, on the principle of “shoot first, ask later.”

However, while this deterrent approach could well be effective against Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, it is very doubtful it would influence Al-Qaida. The accepted wisdom to the effect that this organization is not subject to deterrence is liable to be correct, but it has not yet been proven and the implications are grave. Therefore, there is no alternative but to examine whether there really does exist a threat, no matter how grave, that could serve as a basis for deterring Al-Qaida, such as the destruction of population centers and sites of symbolic and religious importance to Islam. The very thought is repugnant, but possibly only such threats have the potential to prevent an unprecedented threat to Israel.

The good news is that insofar as is known, no terrorist organization has succeeded in obtaining nuclear capability. The technological obstacles are many, the international community, under the leadership of the United States, is increasingly on the alert and apparently Israel is in no immediate danger. Therefore, we have time ahead of us to prepare and formulate a comprehensive thwarting and deterrence policy. One thing is clear: The dimensions of the threat are intolerable and necessitate pertinent preparation, the sooner the better.

The writer served as deputy national security adviser. An extensive study of this issue has been published by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

Patrick Disney: Is the Sanctions Debate Justifying the Military Option?.

To an outsider, it may seem like Washington is united in favor of imposing new sanctions on Iran. But, like in Iran itself, the internal wrangling over this question among Washington policymakers is much more complex and divided by factions than one may assume.

Congressional leaders from both parties have long called for new sanctions — and, bolstered by the strong support of the pro-Israel lobby, even some Democrats have undermined the President’s engagement strategy in their zeal for a more heavy-handed approach. Now that the administration has moved past direct talks and embraced the pressure track, one would assume that Congress, the President and the rest of the Iran policymaking community is in harmony.

But they’re not. Not even close.

The President’s harshest critics, among them future presidential-hopeful Sarah Palin, disparage the administration’s push for sanctions as being too soft. They decry the shift away from “crippling” sanctions — which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had previously endorsed — to a more targeted approach of sanctions that “bite.” The administration is holding firm on its decision not to pursue a unilateral or “coalition of the willing” approach until the multilateral option has been tried within the UN Security Council. And yet, many Republicans who once pressed the administration to abandon diplomatic engagement in favor of new sanctions have now soured on Obama’s version of the pressure track.

Among both liberals and conservatives, there is little optimism that new sanctions will significantly alter the situation facing US-Iran relations.

This is due, in part, to the administration’s inability to clarify its reasons for pursuing sanctions in the first place. Originally, the incoming Obama administration laid out a strategy of diplomatic engagement, bolstered — if need be — by economic pressure. The core of this strategy remained face-to-face talks, and sanctions were depicted as a way to gain leverage at the negotiating table.

It was impossible, however, to anticipate the tectonic shift that took place in Iran after last June’s presidential election. Without warning, a powerful movement sprang up that challenged the very nature of Iran’s theocracy. That is when the rationale for the Administration’s sanctions push shifted. Officials began speaking of targeted sanctions having the potential to influence the “internal dynamics” inside Iran — providing a boost for the protest movement and possibly even bringing about regime change.

These two very divergent justifications for the Administration’s sanctions policy have never been fully reconciled, nor has there been any clarification about what the sanctions are actually supposed to accomplish.

This lack of strategic vision came even more clearly into view when the contents of a secret memo were leaked to the New York Times last week. Written by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the memo asserted that the Obama administration does not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran’s continued development of its nuclear program despite western diplomatic efforts and sanctions.

Now, in the context of this strategic black hole, many in Washington are openly questioning the sanctions option, with conservatives turning sharply against President Obama’s sanctions plan.

Russia and China will never allow meaningful sanctions to be imposed, they argue, so the UN Security Council process is a waste of time. Similarly, unilateral sanctions — which have passed both houses of Congress and need only be combined for the President signature — are unlikely to alter Iran’s behavior. After all, Iran has long anticipated a US clampdown on refined petroleum imports, and has therefore put in place a number measures designed to inoculate itself against any sort of pressure the US and a few of its allies might impose.

Thus, no longer under the illusion that “crippling” sanctions will be a panacea, critics of Obama’s Iran policy are seeking to frame the issue as a choice between living with a nuclear Iran and taking military action to prevent it. Yet this framing deliberately eliminates the various other options the President has at his disposal, and it is intentionally designed to make the military option seem preferable.

The challenge now for the Obama administration will be to demonstrate that this dilemma is in fact a false choice. This is sure to be difficult, however, as Iran’s nuclear program continues to grow and in the absence of any breakthrough on the diplomatic front.

There is little doubt that the Obama administration views military options on Iran as a means only of last resort, but if conventional wisdom solidifies around this stark choice of either a nuclear-armed Iran or a military strike, President Obama is likely to find himself surrounded by members of both parties propagating the idea that all other options have, in fact, been exhausted.

Risk grows that Israel will go alone to take out Iranian nukes | Washington Examiner.

The growing rift between the Obama administration and Israel, coupled with the administration’s failure to rein in Tehran’s nuclear program, has increased the chances that the Israelis will eventually launch an attack on Iran, experts said.

“U.S.-Israeli relations are at their lowest point since … the early ’80s,” said Ilan Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council. “It has a lot to do with the fact that Israel thinks this administration is not serious about preventing a nuclear Iran. What is Israel going to do? I’m not certain one way or another. But from the rhetoric, there will come a determining point.”

Berman said Israel “could wait and see if sanctions would work, [but] if Israel feels threatened it would strike first before allowing a nuclear Iran.”

“If I had to put down odds, I think I would [bet on] the latter,” he added.

A U.S. intelligence official who spoke to this reporter on condition of anonymity said, “Israel will not allow a nuclear Iran to rise. And the U.S. should not either.”

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has frequently promised to destroy Israel, something American officials tend to see as an empty boast aimed at his Islamic extremist power base, but which Israel takes much more seriously.

The Obama administration’s diplomatic efforts aimed at forcing Iran to give up its aspirations to produce nuclear weapons have recently become entangled in global economic realities. China, which uses lots of Iranian oil and sees little advantage in helping the U.S. in the Middle East, has muddied international efforts to toughen sanctions.

The sanctions that have been imposed have proved ineffective, experts said.

This has created distress in Israel, especially in light of worsening relations with the United States. That split was demonstrated earlier this month when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided not to attend the 47-nation nuclear security summit.

Patrick Clawson, deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that despite Iran’s determination for nuclear warheads, “it has encountered significant technical problems that might be slowing it down at least enough to buy the U.S. and Israel some more time.”

Clawson said efforts by Israel and Western countries to slow Iranian attempts to collect what it needs to become a nuclear nation have delayed their program by several months.

But that is delaying the inevitable, experts said. And, when Iran is armed with nuclear weapons, many analysts believe Tel Aviv will be less inclined than at any time in decades to defer to Washington on what action to take. Clawson said Israel “will certainly make its decision on its own” as to whether it will use force against Iran.

Assessments vary as to when Iran will be able to produce nuclear weapons and launch those weapons at its enemies. An unclassified report issued by the Defense Department and first published by Reuters earlier this month said, “With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States by 2015.”

In February the International Atomic Energy Agency acknowledged Iran’s determination to develop a nuclear weapon as rapidly as possible. It was a change from past assessments that stated Iran was still not close to developing a fully capable nuclear weapon.

The IAEA findings gave the U.S. all the evidence it needed to pursue strong sanctions against Iran, Israel believed. But the response from the Obama administration was seen as “futile,” in the words of one analyst.

Iran has been using every means at its disposal in an attempt to acquire enriched uranium to boost its nuclear program, the assessment said. Iranian officials have publicly denied those claims, saying that its plans to enrich uranium to 20 percent levels would be used for the treatment of cancer patients.

Berman warned that the Obama administration’s policy to view the Iranian nuclear issue “as more of a management problem than a global crisis has created serious discontent between Jerusalem and Washington.”

He said, “Remember, Israel is not separated from Iran by a large ocean so they can’t say, ‘Hey maybe Iran is bluffing when they say they want to annihilate us.’ The Israelis have no other choice but to take what Iran says seriously regardless of what anyone else is saying.”

Foreign Policy: Troubling Uncertainty In Syria : NPR.

April 26, 2010

When U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Michele Sison met with Lebanese officials on Wednesday, she had a mission: She was there to urge Lebanon to help avoid a new outbreak of violence between Israel and the Shiite militant group Hezbollah.

Sison, an affable and well-liked career Foreign Service officer, was given the difficult task of both urging the Lebanese to do what they can to avoid an eruption of war and convincing them that U.S. and Israeli concerns about alleged Syrian arms transfers over the Lebanese border should be taken seriously.

Arab press reports cited anonymous sources as saying Sison showed Lebanese Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri photos of truck convoys, evidence of increasing and escalation weapons shipments to Hezbollah. More shockingly, the reports said that she told Lebanese officials the United States had stopped Israel from launching an imminent strike against the convoys. Neither of those details is true, according to multiple administration sources.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told The Cable that the idea American waived Israel off of a strike on Syrian weapons transfers is “totally false,” but declined to describe the specifics of the meeting. Another U.S. official described the Arab press reports as “bulls***.”

Two administration officials close to the issue, however, said that the meeting did in fact take place, but no photos were shown and the United States did not halt an imminent Israeli strike.

“The Israelis weren’t ready to shoot anything. There was never a point where they said, ‘We are going to strike something,'” the official said, adding that at some point Israeli action could of course be a possibility — albeit a disastrous one.

Regardless, the controversy surrounding Sison’s meeting reflects the extremely high tensions in the region following reports of new Syrian weapons transfers, including possibly SCUD missiles, to Hezbollah — tensions the Obama administration is trying to tamp down.

Sison’s message was the same message the U.S. is sending to all the parties, which is, “A war now is not in anyone’s interest,” the official said.

The administration is still not clear that any SCUDs have been transferred, but there is an acknowledgement that Syrian weapons transfers are increasing in both quantity and quality.

“It’s a deterrence game and each side is building up its deterrence capability,” this official said, adding that as both the Israelis and Hezbollah prepare for war, the seriousness of any actual outbreak of fighting is keeping both sides from initiating battle — for now.

“In a way, the deterrence is working,” the source added, noting that the downside risk of the arms buildup is that any miscalculation that begins an open conflict would precipitate a large-scale war that whose consequences would be impossible to predict.

According to this official, who stressed that they were only conveying their personal analysis, not the overall administration position, Hezbollah is still seeking revenge for the 2008 Israeli assassination of its military leader Imad Mughniyeh, and sees some spectacular attack on Israel as a way to achieve that.

But Hezbollah, now accountable to the Lebanese people due to its role in the government, doesn’t want to be seen as firing the first shot that could lead to devastating retaliation from Israel. So the group is trying to goad the Israelis into starting the conflict, the official believes.

The Israelis are aware they are being goaded, the official said, and are doing their best to resist while warning Washington that at some point violence might be unavoidable. “The Israelis know that once they strike, that’s all the excuse that Hezbollah needs to wage a full-scale war,” the official explained.

As for why Syria seems to be playing such an unhelpful role, “that’s the million-dollar question,” the official said. The Obama administration genuinely does not understand Syrian intentions and there are three basic theories within the administration as to why Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would continue to escalate arms shipments to Hezbollah despite U.S. warnings.

According to one school of thought, this is Assad’s way of playing hardball with the Israelis in advance of Israeli-Syrian negotiations. No one wants to negotiate from a weak position, so he is amassing chits that he can bargain away later.

An opposing theory is that Assad has no interest in engaging with the Americans or negotiating with Israel at all. This line of thinking concludes that he is simply paving the way for eventual conflict with Israel.

The third, more nuanced analysis portrays Assad as a man in a bind. He has himself so tied up with Iran and Hezbollah that perhaps he can’t disengage as easily as those in the West think he can. Also, Assad has always been a gambler and may have simply become entangled in his own web of deals with so many competing interests.

“We do not understand Syrian intentions. No one does, and until we get to that question we can never get to the root of the problem,” the official said. “Until then it’s all damage control.”

Meanwhile, the administration is trying to explain to the Syrians how foolish the weapons transfers are, if they are really happening, while telling the Israelis to be patient and arguing that the only beneficiary of a new Israeli-Hezbollah war would be Iran, which would seize upon a new conflict to deflect international pressure over its nuclear program.

And what about Hariri, who said the SCUD allegations were “reminiscent of the weapons of mass destruction allegations against Saddam Hussein” and “a pretext for threatening my country”?

“Hariri is terrified that another war is going to break his country apart and if that means denying the weapons transfers or whatever, he’s going to do it,” our official speculated. “He’s desperately trying to save his country from utter decimation.”

Barack Obama’s top ten insults against Israel – Telegraph Blogs.

‘Time running out over Iran’, Obama warned | Caledonian Mercury – World.

Obama: Waiting for UN move

Patience is running thin in the US Congress over President Barack Obama’s perceived dithering over Iran.

US military chiefs have told Congress that Iran could enrich enough weapons-grade uranium for a single bomb within a year, and overcome technical difficulties with the Shahab-3 missile, which has the range to hit Israel, within three to five years. “With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile [ICBM] capable of reaching the United States by 2015,” a Pentagon document said.

On Sunday Iran’s Revolutionary Guards test-fired five missiles during the last stage of its “Great Prophet 5” manoeuevres in the Persian Gulf, a waterway crucial for global oil supplies.

Tehran denies it is trying to build a nuclear weapon, saying its programme is aimed solely at generating power. But its denial has failed to convince Mr Obama and even less the US Congress, which is pressing the president to block Iranian imports of petrol and other refined petroleum products. Though Iran is the world’s fifth largest crude oil exporter, due to a lack of refining capacity it has to import around 40 per cent of its petrol needs.

Mr Obama is hoping the UN Security Council will reach agreement on new sanctions early next month. These would target Iran’s access to banking, insurance and credit, but congressional leaders don’t believe they go far emough.

The Democratic Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, who has described Iran as “a festering sore in the world”, says time is running out to act, while Howard Berman, the top Democratic representative on the House foreign relations committee, says that while he supports Mr Obama’s efforts to engage Tehran, “all of his diplomatic overtures were rebuffed, and it should now be clear to the world that Tehran has no intention of changing its reckless course in the absence of strong and sustained pressure from the international community”.

The US move would have international repercussions, as any companies worldwide which supply petrol to Iran could be barred from doing business with America. There were signs that foreign companies were already responding to the US move: Christophe de Margerie, chief executive of Total, which delivers small amounts of fuel to Tehran, said his company would halt sales if the US legislation went through.

In a strongly worded editorial, the Christian Science Monitor last week warned against the petrol sanctions move because “the only way to really enforce such a crippling sanction against the Iranian economy would be through an American-led naval blockade which, by international law, is an act of war … History is instructive here: it was a US ban on the export of oil to Imperial Japan for its invasion of China that triggered the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbour. And a US naval blockade of Cuba in 1962 almost led to nuclear war with the Soviet Union.”

There are fears, too, that unless sanctions are seen to be working, Israel may strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities, as it did against
Iraq’s in 1981 and a suspected nuclear research centre in Syria in 2007.

The Obama administration has called for restraint from Israel, because any attack on Iran would escalate tensions and possibly plunge the Middle East into a new conflict. But though relations between the White House and Israel are at a low ebb over the expansion of Israeli settlements, support for Israel in Congress is as strong as ever. The US mid-term elections in November could be a factor in any Israel decision to attack Iran, and Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu is not known for his patience.

With the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, suggesting in a leaked memo that the Obama administration has no clear strategy over Iran, some analysts are concerned that the president may be coerced into taking military action himself. “We do not know who leaked the Gates memo,” said an article in Politico.

“But the ‘senior officials’ who did so were clearly seeking to use their selective description to catalyze more robust planning for potential military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets – the very option that Gates has consistently opposed”.

The magazine added that Mr Obama might be encouraged to go down that route by a recent rise in public support for military action against Iran.

Will Israel Stand Alone?.

Although the Obama administration nominally touts support of the Israeli State, their words and actions have been anything but supportive. America’s Israeli brothers –the best friends it has in the Middle East –have their backs against the wall. Surrounded by hostile neighbors, spearheaded by a venomous Iran bent on its destruction, Israel has looked to the United States for help as it can do in times of trouble.

But the times are more than troubling now, with Iran doggedly pursuing nuclear capabilities while simultaneously calling for Israel’s extinction. And President Obama has been of no help. He has instead called on Israel to halt its construction of neighborhoods in its capital city, citing their offensive nature to the Palestinians. He has declared that Israel must show constraint, while telling Palestinians that they must work for peace. He has overseen the halt of military helicopter sales to Israel, and Admiral Mike Mullen would not promise that the United States would not shoot down Israeli aircraft if they needed use of American airspace to attack Iran. Israel has also  rejected Obama’s calls to halt building in West Jerusalem.

Such news is beyond disheartening. Israel supports renewed American efforts for economic sanctions against Iran; yet, Iran has been the target of international economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure of one kind or another for years, and those sanctions and pressure have produced no positive result. Indeed, Obama’s open-hand policy of friendship and diplomatic dialogue produced only incensed rhetoric and missile tests from Iran. Intelligence now indicates that Iran could have a missile capable of hitting the United States by 2015 –and would be five more years advanced in the nuclear process.

Yet, it is Israel that has more to fear –in both the short and long term. While the United States may, for the moment, lie outside the range of conventional Iranian arms, Israel does not. In range of Iran’s missiles, Israel is also within range of Iran’s nuclear weapons –which would become a reality sooner rather than later. And now Israel must contemplate the delicate choice of incurring the Obama administration’s wrath if it decides to attack Iran, even without American approval. It attacked the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981 without notifying Washington. With Washington’s knowledge, Israel also attacked a suspected nuclear reactor in Syria. And now Israel’s government is divided over how to proceed against Iran.

Members of the Obama administration, including Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Mullen, reserve military action as a last option against Iran. Yet, Iran does not have the luxury of time to play diplomatic games. While the Obama administration is conveniently taking the option of “last resort” when it comes to military action against Iran, Israel must answer a question of “necessity” and “when”: When does it become necessary to strike Iran? Theoretically, diplomatic options can never be exhausted. There is always another “choice”, rendering “last resort” impossible, especially for a nation tucked safely away across an ocean from conventional threats. Israel has limited choices.

The Obama administration, rather than helping Israel, is backing it into a corner. At least under Obama, Israel will more than likely be forced to act alone in ending the nuclear threat posed by Iran. Obama, who has rendered American foreign policy impotent, will probably be of no help. Israel will be near-universally condemned for striking Iran, but the world will secretly breathe a collective sigh of relief that it no longer has to contend with a nuclear-armed, theocratic rogue state.

Richard N. Haass: Don’t Exaggerate the Importance of a Palestine Peace – WSJ.com.

Announcing a comprehensive plan now—one that is all but certain to fail—risks discrediting good ideas, breeding frustration in the Arab world, and diluting America’s reputation for getting things done.

By RICHARD N. HAASS

President Obama recently said it was a “vital national security interest of the United States” to resolve the Middle East conflict. Last month, David Petraeus, the general who leads U.S. Central Command, testified before Congress that “enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests.” He went on to say that “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples . . . and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.”

To be sure, peace between Israelis and Palestinians would be of real value. It would constitute a major foreign-policy accomplishment for the United States. It would help ensure Israel’s survival as a democratic, secure, prosperous, Jewish state. It would reduce Palestinian and Arab alienation, a source of anti-Americanism and radicalism. And it would dilute the appeal of Iran and its clients.

But it is easy to exaggerate how central the Israel-Palestinian issue is and how much the U.S. pays for the current state of affairs. There are times one could be forgiven for thinking that solving the Palestinian problem would take care of every global challenge from climate change to the flu. But would it? The short answer is no. It matters, but both less and in a different way than people tend to think.

Take Iraq, the biggest American investment in the Greater Middle East over the past decade. That country’s Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are divided over the composition of the new government, how to share oil revenues, and where to draw the border between the Kurdish and Arab areas. The emergence of a Palestinian state would not affect any of these power struggles.

Soon to surpass Iraq as the largest U.S. involvement in the region is Afghanistan. Here the U.S. finds itself working against, as much as with, a weak and corrupt president who frustrates American efforts to build up a government that is both willing and able to take on the Taliban. Again, the emergence of a Palestinian state would have no effect on prospects for U.S. policy in Afghanistan or on Afghanistan itself.

What about Iran? The greatest concern is Iran’s push for nuclear weapons. But what motivates this pursuit is less a desire to offset Israel’s nuclear weapons than a fear of conventional military attack by the U.S. Iran’s nuclear bid is also closely tied to its desire for regional primacy. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians would not weaken Iran’s nuclear aspirations. It could even reinforce them. Iran and the groups it backs (notably Hamas and Hezbollah) would be sidelined by the region’s embrace of a Palestinian state and acceptance of Israel, perhaps causing Tehran to look to nuclear weapons to compensate for its loss of standing and influence.

Nor is it clear what effect successful peacemaking would have on Arab governments. The Palestinian impasse did nothing to dissuade Arab governments from working with the U.S. to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in the Gulf War when they determined it was in their interest to do so. Similarly, an absence of diplomatic progress would not preclude collaboration against an aggressive Iran. Just as important, a solution would not resolve questions of political stability and legitimacy within the largely authoritarian Arab world.

Alas, neither would terrorism fade if Israelis and Palestinians finally ended their conflict. Al Qaeda was initially motivated by a desire to rid the Arabian Peninsula of infidels. Its larger goal is to spread Islam in a form that closely resembles its pure, seventh-century character. Lip service is paid to Palestinian goals, but the radical terrorist agenda would not be satisfied by Palestinian statehood.

What is more, any Palestinian state would materialize only amidst compromise. There will be no return to the 1967 borders; at most, Palestinians would be compensated for territorial adjustments made necessary by large blocs of Jewish settlements and Israeli security concerns. There will be nothing more than a token right of return for Palestinians to Israel. Jerusalem will remain undivided and at most shared. Terrorists would see all this as a sell-out, and they would target not just Israel but those Palestinians and Arab states who made peace with it.

The danger of exaggerating the benefits of solving the Palestinian conflict is that doing so runs the risk of distorting American foreign policy. It accords the issue more prominence than it deserves, produces impatience, and tempts the U.S. government to adopt policies that are overly ambitious.

This is not an argument for ignoring the Palestinian issue. As is so often the case, neglect will likely prove malign. But those urging President Obama to announce a peace plan are doing him and the cause of peace no favor. Announcing a comprehensive plan now—one that is all but certain to fail—risks discrediting good ideas, breeding frustration in the Arab world, and diluting America’s reputation for getting things done.

As Edgar noted in “King Lear,” “Ripeness is all.” And the situation in the Middle East is anything but ripe for ambitious diplomacy. What is missing are not ideas—the outlines of peace are well-known—but the will and ability to compromise.

The Palestinian leadership remains weak and divided; the Israeli government is too ideological and fractured; U.S.-Israeli relations are too strained for Israel to place much faith in American promises. The West Bank is the equivalent of a fragile state at best. What is needed are sustained efforts to strengthen Palestinian economic, military and governing capacities on the West Bank so that Israel will come to see the Palestinian Authority as a partner it can work with.

Also needed are efforts to repair U.S.-Israeli ties. The most important issue facing the two countries is Iran. It is essential the two governments develop a modicum of trust if they are to manage inevitable differences over what to do about Iran’s nuclear program, a challenge that promises to be the most significant strategic threat of this decade. A protracted disagreement over the number of settlements or the contours of a final settlement is a distraction that would benefit neither the U.S. nor Israel, given an Iranian threat that is close at hand and a promise of peace that is distant.

Mr. Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of “War of Necessity, War of Choice: A Memoir of Two Iraq Wars” (Simon & Schuster, 2009).

U.S. messages to Syria may not be getting through.

Monday, April 26, 2010

The Region: Onwards, Iran marches.

.
Photo by: AP

By BARRY RUBIN
26/04/2010 09:20

It has been 15 months since Barack Obama called for ‘good-faith negotiations’ with the Islamic Republic on its nuclear program. Where are we now? Still talking about it.

Iran may be able to build a missile capable of striking the United States by 2015, according to a new US Department of Defense report. As I keep trying to explain, this isn’t all about Israel, because Iran will be able to hit any country in the region.