WarSclerotic

The U.S. can meet Israel halfway on Iran :: Middle East Clarity.

By Dennis Ross and David Makovsky, Published: March 31

There is no daylight between the United States and Israel on the objective and the preferred means for dealing with Iranian nuclear ambitions. Much has been written about possible differences, but the recent meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu highlighted key points of convergence: Both agree that the objective is prevention, not containment, and that a nuclear Iran could set off an arms race in an already-dangerous region. The heightened risk of a nuclear war in the Middle East is, in essence, why Obama has indicated that the issue is in the “American national interest.”

The two leaders agree that a peaceful solution to ensuring that Iran does not achieve nuclear weapons is preferable. Iran faces sanctions that are tougher than ever before, giving diplomacy a chance to succeed in a way that it has not.

Any differences between the two countries stem from a basic reality: The United States, given its significantly greater military capability, can afford to wait longer than Israel to give diplomacy time to succeed. From Israel’s perspective, as Defense Minister Ehud Barak has explained, there will come a point when, if no action is taken, the depth and breadth of the Iranian nuclear program will force Israel to forgo its military option. Forgoing the use of force against an existential threat would be a historic decision for any Israeli prime minister and goes against that country’s ethos of self-reliance.

That said, Israeli military action need not be imminent or inevitable. After his meeting with Obama, Netanyahu said the time frame for the possible use of force is measured “not in days or weeks” but “also not in years.” Although Obama has noted that the “window” for diplomacy is “closing,” there is space for it to work.

Will diplomacy complicate efforts to synchronize the U.S. and Israeli clocks? Possibly, but here again we see more convergence than divergence. The United States, like Israel, has limits. Perhaps that is why Obama has also said that he is not bluffing, essentially signaling to Iran that this is its last chance: If Tehran wants to avoid military action against its nuclear program, it must take the diplomatic route that remains available.

Given the stakes, the issue of Iran’s nuclear program is a global responsibility. It is important that any military action be widely accepted internationally as a direct consequence of Iran’s intransigence. If force is used, it must be because Iran brought it upon itself. Under such circumstances, it is far more likely that after the strike the world will be able to preserve the sanctions against Iran and maintain its international isolation. These are crucial if Iran is to be prevented from reconstituting its nuclear program.

With negotiations among Iran and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) set to begin April 13, there is a need to assuage the Israeli fear that negotiations will drag on beyond a point at which Israel would lose its military option. Several actions could reconcile the U.S. and Israeli timetables with the ongoing diplomacy.

First, Washington should reassure Israel that it will be looking for concrete and verifiable signs that Iran is prepared to comply with its obligations on the nuclear program. Second, U.S. officials should discuss these concrete signs with the Israelis and consult with them about the ongoing negotiations. Third, Washington should discuss a time frame with the Israelis and the P5+1 during which progress must be made in the negotiations to justify their continuation. This must be conveyed to the Iranians as well. Fourth, the United States should make publicly clear that while it is serious about giving diplomacy a chance, it will not engage in a phony process; that time is running out for diplomacy to work and obviate the alternative — the use of force.

Because Israel is the only country that Iran has repeatedly threatened to “wipe off the map,” it is reasonable for it to have some input into the objectives of diplomacy and the timetable for progress in negotiations. The more Israelis feel their views are being taken into account, the more inclined they will be to give diplomacy a chance to work before resorting to force. Israel should also understand that if diplomacy fails and force proves necessary, the context in which force is used will be critical. A strike on Iran is likely to be limited in value if it is not followed by a sustained international sanctions effort to avoid importation of key material to reconstitute Iran’s nuclear program.

It is possible to synchronize the U.S. and Israeli clocks and give diplomacy a chance to work. Ironically, the better these timetables are aligned, and the more Tehran understands this reality, the more likely the Iranians are to see that if they want to avoid force being used against them, they must take advantage of the diplomatic out that the United States is offering.

© The Washington Post Company

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report April 2, 2012, 9:36 AM (GMT+02:00)

Prof. George Sabra, last opposition leader to escape from Damascus

“You don’t have to invade Syria or commit large numbers of troops to defending us. To break the Syria army’s loyalty for Bashar Assad, nothing more is needed than a small village, such as Garganaz near Idlib in northern Syria, to be declared a safe haven under US protection against attack, said Prof. George Sabra to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the sidelines of the second Friends of Syria meeting in Istanbul Sunday, April 1.
Sabra was chosen by the umbrella Syrian National Council to put the unified opposition case before Secretary Clinton because he had escaped from Damascus only a few days earlier with the most up-to-date news of events there.
The professor, a Christian Orthodox, is respected as a non-political figure with no personal ambitions.

Garganaz, a village of 1,000 souls, sits at the hub of a group of villages that includes Alghadaka, Talmans, Maarshamareen and Maarshoryen. In his appeal to Clinton, the professor tried explaining why singling it out as a US- protected enclave would be effective.
The Syrian army is on the verge of falling apart, he reported. It is kept going mainly by the weakness of the Syrian Free Army which is seriously under-armed. If the opposition could set up even a small focus of resistance and place it out of bounds to Syrian troops, this could reverse the tide.
debkafile sources, talking to US and Syrian circles with access to the content of this critical conversation between Secretary Clinton and Prof. Sabra, say he made five more points:
1.  Syria’s Christian minority (11 percent of the population) will not abandon Assad without being sure of immediate Western intervention;
2.  The revolt against the Assad regime failed largely because the opposition lacked a symbolic, unifying leader.

3.  Syrian tanks have trampled every emblem of the uprising from Deraa in the south up to Homs in the north. The US must not abandon the uprising at this most critical juncture of the conflict but go forward and help fashion a symbol of resistance which is off limits to those tanks.
4.  Weapons aid to the rebels must not be identified as Saudi or Qatari. Assad’s propagandists presents the opposition as supported by foreign “terrorists” which is an affront to Syrian national pride.
5.  US diplomacy could make itself useful by interceding with the heads of the autonomous Kurdish republic Iraq to stop collaborating with Assad and keeping the Kurdish communities of Damascus and Aleppo (some 150,000) out of the uprising. If the Kurds pitched into the revolt, those cities would finally rise up against the Assad regime.
Our sources report that Clinton was unmoved by Prof. Sabra’s appeal and made no adjustments to the positions she brought with her.
“The US will create an umbrella group to tighten sanctions,” she said in conclusion of the second Friends of Syria conference, “increase funding for humanitarian aid, supply opposition forces with communications gear and create a group to monitor Syrian atrocities so that members of the regime can eventually be held accountable for the violence there.”
The meeting fell short of recognizing the SNC as the opposition’s legitimate representative.
The 83-nation gathering therefore changed nothing. Ten months ago, on July 26, 2011, the United States secretly supplied Syrian opposition leaders with satellite telephones for their centers to communicate safe from eavesdropping by Assad’s Iranian and Russian intelligence helpers. Those telephones didn’t stop Assad’s tanks in the past, say the cynics.
Assad for his part is up to his usual tricks of accepting but not implementing the six-point peace plan put forward by UN envoy Kofi Annan. He has no intention of withdrawing from towns and cities or allowing humanitarian access.