WarSclerotic

Israel Hayom | Does the US stand for anything at all?.

Elliot Abrams

Does the United States stand for anything at all? Do we have a view about, say, slavery, or child prostitution, or the stoning of gays?

What should be a ridiculous question is raised by Secretary of State John Kerry’s offensive obeisance to the Saudis yesterday when visiting Riyadh. Here is the AP story:

“On the move for Saudi women to be allowed to drive, Kerry was careful not to appear to take sides. Noting that while the United States embraces gender equality, ‘it is up to Saudi Arabia to make its own decisions about its own social structure and choices and the timing of whatever events.'”

Apparently, far be it from us to criticize Saudi repression of women and the ludicrous and offensive practice of preventing women from driving. How far does Secretary Kerry go with this “your own decisions about your own social structure?” Does it matter to him that “Saudis” don’t get to make that decision — because the country has no democratic institutions whatsoever?

Mr. Kerry’s abandonment of American standards when addressing the Saudi leaders was not only offensive, it was useless and unneeded. When his predecessor Condoleezza Rice used to visit there, she refused to cover her hair as current Saudi practices demand; they got over it. Had Mr. Kerry replied, “Well, as an American of course I think that rule about driving is ridiculous,” do we think they’d have declared war? Kerry was speaking with Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, a graduate of Princeton University who also went to prep school in the United States. Does the secretary believe that Saud actually thinks women should not be permitted to drive, and that saying so would have offended him? Does the secretary think he increases respect for the United States when he refuses to defend our view of equality before the law?

The Saudi episode came a day after Kerry made an inaccurate and unfortunate statement about Egypt: that it is moving toward democracy under army rule. In an editorial, The Washington Post said it all:

“A Freedom House report released Monday concludes that ‘there has been virtually no substantive progress toward democracy … since the July 3 coup,’ despite the military regime’s supposed ‘road map.’ But that’s not how Secretary of State John F. Kerry sees it. ‘The road map is being carried out to the best of our perception,’ he pronounced during a quick trip to Cairo on Sunday. A liberal constitution and elections? ‘All of that is, in fact, moving down the road map in the direction that everybody has been hoping for.’

“What is it that Mr. Kerry doesn’t perceive? To judge that Egypt is headed toward democracy is to ignore the fact that its last elected leader and thousands of his supporters are now political prisoners facing, at best, blatantly unfair trials. It is to overlook the reality that opposition media have been shut down and that those that remain are more tightly controlled by the regime than they have been in decades. It skips over the rigging of the constitution by the military and that leading secular liberal politicians, such as former presidential candidates Mohamed ElBaradei and Ayman Nour, have been driven out of the country. … Mr. Kerry’s embrace of the regime’s empty promises of democracy only makes him appear foolish — or, perhaps, as cynical as the generals.”

Chalk up one point for Kerry: consistency. In both Egypt and Saudi Arabia, he abandoned any defense of American political and social principles to curry favor with the folks with whom he was speaking. Nothing good ever comes of such a stance: We look weak to the very officials to whom we are trying to look strong, and walk away from the courageous individuals in those countries struggling for human rights, for women’s rights in particular, and for political freedom.

From “Pressure Points” by Elliott Abrams. Reprinted with permission from the Council on Foreign Relations.

Israel Hayom | America in isolation.

Zalman Shoval

In the United States, the 1930s and 1940s were years of extreme isolationism and alienation toward the rest of the world in general and foreigners in particular. The prevalent motto in Congress and the media was: “Leave us alone with your problems.”

Not unrelated to this isolationist atmosphere, a strong wave of anti-Semitism spread throughout the U.S. at that time. It sometimes turned violent, which led some prominent American Jews, like Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter and Jewish-owned newspapers like The New York Times to ignore the distress of the Jews in Europe, “so as to avoid arousing more waves of anti-Semitism.”

The political leaders in the U.S. today, on both sides of the aisle, would angrily deny the claim that they are isolationist, but the facts on the ground and the things being said and written publicly are a testament that the claim is not completely without merit. On the right side of the political map there are those who are happy to express their isolationist worldviews, while on the left they prefer phrases such as “leading from behind” or “we will act only through the United Nations and the family of nations.”

Isolationism, however, is a matter of tangible behavior, not semantics. Thus, for example, we hear U.S. President Barack Obama say America no longer wants to be the “world’s policeman,” and his national security adviser, Susan Rice — to justify the lethargic stance against Syria and Iran — says “there is an entire world where the U.S. also has interests and opportunities.”

Obama declared in his speech at the U.N. that Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process are clear American interests; the question is, how does his government interpret these interests. One obvious example of the isolationist mentality was provided last week in a New York Times editorial piece. The editorial discussed the frustrations of traditional American allies in the Middle East toward the Obama administration due to its conduct vis-à-vis Syria, Iran and Egypt, writing: “Mr. Obama’s first responsibility is to America’s national interest. And he has been absolutely right in refusing to be goaded into a war in Syria or bullied into squandering a rare, if remote, chance to negotiate an Iranian nuclear deal.” In other words, all of these issues, including Iran’s nuclear program, are not in America’s national interest.

Of course the article does not refrain from accusing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of “doing his best to torpedo any nuclear deal with Iran, including urging Congress to impose more economic sanctions on Iran that could bring the incipient negotiations between Iran’s new government and the major powers to a halt.” From here it won’t be long before America’s allies, like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Israel, are presented as “damaging” and trying to sabotage the idyll currently being pursued between America and Iran. In the meantime, the Times is also critical of the White House on a number of issues, including its foreign affairs conduct.

The Washington Post claims that Obama’s mistake is that he believes that what is transpiring in the Middle East is not a serious threat to American interests, and that it is possible for these issues to be “safely relegated to the nebulous realm of U.N. diplomacy and Geneva conferences, where Secretary of State John Kerry lives.”

A slightly cynical article in The Weekly Standard touches, in this context, on the Palestinian issue. According to the author, the U.S. has used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to strengthen its grip on Israel and the Palestinians, and through them on the entire Middle East, but if Obama and his advisers no longer have an interest in the region then there is no special reason for them to care if a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is found. Our conflict, according to this piece, “is a local issue regardless with no influence on global stability, and whoever has not understood this, the Arab Spring came along and reminded him.”

One of the differences, and not an especially favorable one, between the 1930s and 1940s and today, is that back then the president was Franklin Roosevelt, who understood that despite the difficult economic problems facing America, his country would have to come to the aid of Great Britain in order to save the entire free world, including America itself. Now, one often gets the impression that the U.S. prefers to willfully ignore its responsibilities as the leader of the free world.

Netanyahu warns Kerry against Iran sanctions relief | The Times of Israel.

Amid reports US could offer Islamic republic an interim deal, PM insists Tehran must ‘fully dismantle its nuclear weapons program’

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took direct aim at the Obama administration’s desire for a pause in new sanctions against Iran on Wednesday, telling the visiting American secretary of state that only more pressure would convince the Iranians to prove their nuclear program is peaceful.

“I believe that as long as they continue their goal to enrich uranium, to get nuclear weapons, the pressure should be maintained and even increased because they’re increasing enrichment, and I believe that it’s possible with intense pressure — because of the sanctions regime led in large part by the United States — to get Iran to fully dismantle its nuclear weapons program,” Netanyahu said alongside John Kerry in a press conference in Jerusalem.

“I’d be very worried with any partial deals that enable Iran to maintain those capabilities but begin to reduce sanctions because I think this could undermine the longevity and durability of the sanctions regime,” he added, alluding to recent reports according to which the US was willing to provide sanctions relief to the Islamic Republic in exchange for some compromises on its nuclear program.

Netanyahu’s statement came ahead of a second round of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany, scheduled to begin in Geneva on Thursday.

The Obama administration says it wants to hold off on new sanctions to allow for flexibility in those talks.

Kerry did not address the sanctions issues during his public comments with Netanyahu Wednesday, but stressed that the US would not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon.

“Our goal is an Iran that has only a peaceful nuclear program, and indeed we must make certain –- it is incumbent on us, a responsibility of the world — to know with certainty that it is a peaceful program and there is no capacity to produce a weapon of mass destruction,” he said. “That’s our goal. And as I have said many times, no deal is better than a bad deal. We will not make a bad deal if a deal can be made at all. And we will be pursuing that carefully.”

According to a report Tuesday in the London Times, Iran could be offered a one-time cash payment from its frozen oil revenues as part of a plan being explored to give the Islamic Republic some immediate relief from sanctions that have crippled its economic.

The money would come in exchange for a complete halting of Iran’s nuclear program while negotiations with Western powers continue, the report said.

Netanyahu has warned against any type of sanctions relief before Iran completely abandons uranium enrichment, a position that the Islamic Republic has so far rejected outright.

Israel sees a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat, and Netanyahu has vowed to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes, unilaterally if necessary.

In an interview with Israeli TV Sunday, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman, another leading Obama administration official, addressed Netanyahu’s assertion that Israel would stand alone against Iran if need be. Sherman remarked that the best resolution to the issue of Iran’s nuclear program was “a peaceful negotiated solution” — and that Netanyahu was well aware of that fact.

“Israel knows as well as any country, if not better than any country, the cost of war, the cost of military action,” she said.

Netanyahu, at a Likud faction meeting Monday, chose to play up the inflammatory rhetoric emanating from Iran in the past few days, ahead of the anniversary of the 1979 storming of the American embassy in Tehran.

‘Compromise will likely lead to nuclear Iran,’ says expert | JPost | Israel News.

Prof. Uzi Rabi says window for effective military action against Tehran’s nuclear facilities has closed.

The international community and Iran are on a path to reaching a “middle ground” deal on Tehran’s nuclear program that will allow each side to claim victory, but which will allow Iran to eventually become a nuclear state, a leading Middle East expert told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.

Prof. Uzi Rabi, director of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University, who will soon publish the book The Shi’ite Crescent: An Iranian Vision and Arab Fear, added that an Israeli military operation against Iran’s nuclear program was feasible several years ago, but that today, “the train has left the station.”

He added, however, that the Iranian regime is rational and calculated, and that Israel will need to start thinking about how to contain a nuclear Iran together with Arab states that are also threatened by the Islamic Republic.

In current diplomatic talks between Iran and the international community, “the two sides understand they have to reach a middle ground,” Rabi said. An agreement will likely involve Iran decreasing its uranium enrichment activities and a timetable for inspection of nuclear facilities, though it will not include complete Iranian transparency, he added.

“Some of the sites will be open for inspection. Everything will be partial. This is convenient for the Iranian and the American presidents,” Rabi stated.

Such an agreement will likely be supported by Russia – and Europe, despite some reservations, will give its blessing as well.

Iran will not provide any further concessions, Rabi stressed.

A deal on Iran’s nuclear program might also expand to an international arrangement for the attempted resolution of the Syrian conflict, Rabi said.

“The Iranians can say: ‘If we’re accepted as a partner in future talks on Syria, we can carry out steps that will push towards an end to the conflict in Syria,’” he added.

The US will seek to calm its Middle East allies, Israel, the Gulf states and Egypt, all of whom are threatened by a nuclear Iran, and convince them that it did not abandon them.

In Iran, elites tied into the regime, such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, will also create obstacles to any deal, Rabi argued.

Any lifting of sanctions will likely be gradual and could involve a slow easing of restrictions on the Iranian oil or banking industries.

But a partial nuclear deal is a “certified recipe for creating a nuclear Iran in the intermediate future,” Rabi warned. Israel and other regional states will have to start thinking about not only preventing Iran from arming itself with nuclear weapons, but how to contain a nuclear Tehran as well.

Rabi expressed skepticism that a military attack at this late phase could effectively stop the Islamic Republic’s march to atomic bombs.

“A strike can put them back perhaps by a year or two. What do you do at the end of that time? Strike again?” he asked. Instead, Israel should enter a regional coalition of states threatened by Iran, he argued.

Military generals in Israel who urged the government to wait before striking Iran years ago should not be pushing for a strike at such a late stage, he charged.

“I don’t think a nuclear Iran will cause a regional disaster. It will create very difficult challenges,” Rabi said.

He argued that Iran has been successful in using diplomatic forums to isolate Israel, and that Jerusalem needs to develop new diplomatic tools to fight back with.

Despite Israel’s “war of attrition” against Tehran’s plans, “the world is allowing Iran to go nuclear. Iran has things to offer behind closed doors. Israel isn’t there. It just gets reports.

“We have to be responsive and not enter a state of melancholy. There won’t be regional destruction or apocalyptic scenarios. Israel must develop tools to ensure that its back isn’t against the wall,” Rabi said.

“Iran is very calculated. It does not want to lose resources in a futile war,” he added.

Inside Iran, President Hassan Rouhani has managed to convince the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, that a change in tactics is in order to prevent a collapse of the economy and a new revolution.

Rouhani is a product of the Iranian regime, and his call for a change of course is merely tactical, not ideological, according to Rabi’s assessment.

“He belongs to the elite of the Islamic revolution… what he’s trying to do is prove that through his way, Iran can purchase estates of support abroad and ease the sanctions, without significantly harming Iranian interests.”

“The Iranian charm offensive is working on the Europeans and Americans, who do not want to get involved in another Middle Eastern saga, and want to look at the half-full glass,” Rabi added.

Poll: Americans strongly support Israel, but don’t want to get involved in Middle East – Diplomacy and Defense Israel News | Haaretz.

Poll of American attitudes shows only slim majorities in support of U.S. military intervention in Iran or support for an Israeli strike.

Pro-Israel demonstration outside the UN in New York. Photo by AP

Only 40 percent of Americans believe that the United States should support Israel if it were to attack Iran to stop its nuclear program, according to a new survey on American attitudes toward issues concerning Israel, the Middle East and Iran.

Nine percent of respondents to the survey said that the United States should oppose an attack on Iran by Israel and 48 percent said the United States should remain neutral.

Commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League, the 2013 Survey of American Attitudes on Israel, the Palestinians and the Middle East was released in New York on Tuesday.

Fifty percent of the respondents would support U.S. military action, if necessary, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons – a slim plurality over the 41 percent who are opposed to such intervention. Similarly, 46 percent believe that sanctions against Iran should remain in place until it gives up its weapons program, with 42 percent opposed.

That said, the respondents to the survey displayed little trust in Iran. Eighty-one percent said they do not trust Iran when it says it will not develop nuclear weapons, while 74 percent said they did not believe Iran will abide by its public commitment not to develop nuclear weapons.

The results of the survey showed ambivalence about U.S. involvement in the region, alongside strong support for Israel, the ADL said in a statement.

That is borne out by the responses to questions about the Middle East peace process. A significant majority of Americans – 62 percent — said that Israelis and Palestinians should achieve peace by themselves, with minimal U.S. involvement. Only 29 percent said it could not happen without U.S. leadership.

At the same time, 76 percent of those polled said that Israel can be counted on as a strong U.S. ally, the highest figure in recent years, while 64 percent said they believe that Israel is serious in reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

Personal attitudes were also strongly in Israel’s favor, with three times as many Americans expressing sympathy for Israel rather than for the Palestinians – 48 percent to 16 percent.

“This latest survey of the American people shows that Americans continue to see Israel as America’s closest ally in the Middle East and a willing partner for peace with the Palestinians,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. “American public sympathy for Israel in the conflict with the Palestinians is at an all-time high.”

Foxman added that the survey also indicated that “the American people want less U.S. involvement in the Middle East region, a position which has little to do with negative feelings toward Israel, but that can have negative consequences for the Jewish state.”

The American ambivalence about Middle East involvement was also clearly indicated in the responses to questions about Egypt and Syria. Given the widespread opposition to foreign aid in the U.S., it was not surprising that 67 percent of the respondents said they would support a U.S. decision to reduce military aid to Egypt, while only 27 percent said aid should not be reduced.

When asked who would do a better job in providing leadership for Egypt – the military or the Muslim Brotherhood — 64 percent of Americans responded that “neither” would provide positive leadership. Only 7 percent responded in favor of Muslim Brotherhood leadership, and 17 percent for the military.

On Syria, the American public opposes military action against Syria by a margin of 53-40, even if President Bashar Assad fails to destroy his chemical weapons. Similarly, a clear majority – 64 percent – is opposed to U.S. attempts to remove Assad from power.

The survey was conducted telephonically among 1,200 American adults nationwide on October 12-22. The margin of error is +/-2.8 percent.

Will new-old Foreign Minister Lieberman join Netanyahu’s talks with Putin in Moscow?.

Avigdor Lieberman gives up thanks at Western Wall

Avigdor Lieberman’s unanimous acquittal by a Jerusalem court on charges of fraud and breach of trust, Wednesday, Nov. 6 – and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s instantaneous welcome of his ally’s return to government – dovetail neatly with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s announcement of talks with the Israeli prime minister in Moscow on Nov. 20.
Lieberman was quickly invited to be sworn in again to this old post of foreign minister from which he stepped down in January after he was indicted.
Russian-speaking Lieberman, who was born in Moldavia, has friendly personal ties Putin. It will be interesting to see whether Netanyahu asks the restored right-of-center foreign minister to accompany him on his visit to Moscow for a meeting which may be of pivotal importance in the rapidly changing international balance in the Middle East

The hard-line politician’s return to the political scene with added clout will no doubt affect the internal balance of the Netanyahu government coalition and Israeli politics at large.

If he decides to take him to Moscow, Netanyahu will be sending three signals:
1. He may be tapping him as next Likud leader. Netanyahu and Lieberman merged the parliamentary lists of their parties, Likud and Yisrael Beitenu, running them as a unified list in the last general election in January. For Lieberman to succeed him, the prime minister would have to expand this merger into a full amalgamation of the two parties and overcome resistance in both to this step.
2.  Unlike Netanyahu, Lieberman always opposed exercising a military option against Iran’s nuclear program and favored alternative measures. If he is invited to accompany the prime minister to Moscow, it would indicate that Netanyahu is open to discourse on non-military ways for integrating Israel in the US-Russian strategy for dealing with that program as well as the Syrian war.
As long as the former foreign minister was out of action, Netanyahu acted out the role of lone knight in shining armor ready to take on the whole world in order to disarm a nuclear Iran. A partnership with Lieberman would put an end to that posture.
3.  The economic aspect of a tie-in between Jerusalem and Moscow has been overlooked by Israeli spokesmen and media in the hue and cry over partisan politics. However, Moscow has long been angling for a share in the export facilities of Leviathan, Israel’s largest offshore natural gas well, in particular a contract for the pipeline to be laid to Europe.

For Putin this is a major objective against which Netanyahu has resolutely dug in his heels. Lieberman was more amenable to a Russian stake in Israel’s energy industry. With the rapid expansion of Russian footholds across the Middle East, this could no be an ace up Israel’s sleeve. The new-old foreign minister is well-placed to act as broker in such a bargain.

His return to the cabinet is bad news for US Secretary of State John Kerry’s deeply-committed effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with a negotiated final-status accord. Kerry was not exactly happy when Netanyahu interrupted their conversation in Jerusalem Wednesday to congratulate Lieberman on his acquittal and welcome him back to the cabinet.
As foreign minister, Lieberman argued outspokenly against a lasting peace agreement with the Palestinians, arguing that was unattainable at this time and pushing for interim accords on specific issues.

Iranian FM says deal on nuclear program possible this week | The Times of Israel.

Mohammad Javad Zarif qualifies, however, that ‘there’s a lot of work to do’

By Times of Israel staff November 5, 2013, 10:29 pm

Iran’s new Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif speaks during a forum in Istanbul, Turkey, Friday, Nov. 1, 2013. (AP Photo)

A deal with the six world powers (P5+1) to resolve the stalemate over Iran’s nuclear program could come later this week in Geneva, the Iranian foreign minister said Tuesday.

“I think it is possible to reach an accord this week, but I can only speak for my country, not for the others [the P5+1 made up of the US, Russia, the UK, China, France and Germany],” Mohammad Javad Zarif told France 24 television. “There’s a lot of work to do, we’ve made some progress… but I think we are very close to an agreement.”

Zarif’s optimistic comments coincided with an unconfirmed report by the official IRNA news agency quoting Iran’s nuclear chief, Ali Akbar Salehi, as saying that Yukiya Amano will visit Tehran on November 12, a sign that talks are progressing.

Last week in Vienna, Iranian and IAEA envoys discussed Tehran’s proposals to ease Western concerns that Iran could eventually produce nuclear weapons, after which Amano said “there is some substance in the new proposal by Iran.”

However, they contrast with pessimistic remarks made Sunday by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

“I am not optimistic about the outcome of the talks but… we will not be hurt by carrying out negotiations,” he said, adding that the US should not be trusted because even though the Americans “express interest” in discussions, they “keep smiling on one hand, and then immediately say they have all options on the table” — in a reference to a potential military strike on Iran.

Zarif echoed some of Khameini’s pessimism, while maintaining that Iran would enter the next round of talks in good faith.

“We have made some progress but there is a great deal of mistrust in Iran concerning the attitude, the behavior and the approach of some members of P5+1,” Zarif said, according to French news source AFP. “I believe the trust of the Iranian people must be regained. We need to enter these discussions with an open eye but in good faith. We are prepared to reach an agreement.”

Iran and the P5+1 countries are scheduled to meet for a second round of talks in Geneva November 7-8.

Last month’s meeting between the parties produced cautious optimism that a deal could be reached to limit Iranian nuclear enrichment in exchange for eased sanctions.

The talks in Geneva were focused on limiting Iranian nuclear programs that can be used both to generate power and make fissile warhead material.

The key elements of the talks are Iran’s uranium enrichment program and its plutonium heavy-water facility. Western nations argue that the 20 percent enriched uranium and the plutonium Iran is producing are not necessary for generating nuclear power and therefore must be halted with all such material removed from the country.

Israel has called for enrichment to cease completely, saying even low-grade uranium could be made suitable for a nuclear weapon in a short time with enough centrifuges running.

Iran says it has no nuclear arms and denies working toward them, claiming all its atomic activities are peaceful. While the talks with the IAEA and the P5+1 are formally separate, they are linked by concerns over Iran’s nuclear aspirations, and progress in one may result in advances in the other.

The diplomatic atmosphere between Iran and Western powers improved following the August installation of President Hassan Rouhani who is considered more moderate than his predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. During the United Nations General Assembly meetings at the beginning of September Iranian officials, including Rouhani, held ground-breaking meetings with Western leaders after years of diplomatic severance.

Moscow announces Netanyahu to meet Putin in two weeks – as Kerry lands in Jerusalem.

Putin and Netanyahu last met in Sochi in May

Shortly before US Secretary of State John Kerry landed in Jerusalem Tuesday night, Nov. 5, the Russian president’s office announced that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu would pay a short working visit to Moscow on Nov. 20 for talks with President Vladimir Putin.

debkafile’s sources: The Israeli leader has determined to explore the route trodden by Saudi Arabia, Gulf Emirates and Egypt, who – feeling let down by the Obama administration’s decision to pull out of the Middle East, and concerend by its outreach to Iran – turned to Moscow in search of  closer diplomatic and military ties.
Although this was in Netanyahu’s mind for some time, Putin chose to announce his visit just as Kerry was to land in Jerusalem, attesting to Moscow’s eagerness to maintain the political and military momentum it has established in the Middle East.
Earlier Tuesday, Moscow announced that Geneva II, the conference for a political solution of the Syrian war, would not take place at the end of the month as scheduled.
Monday, debkafile’s military sources revealed exclusively that Russia, with Saudi encouragement, was negotiating for a permanent berth for its warship in one of Egypt’s Mediterranean ports.
With the wheels of the region spinning at such speed, Netanyahu felt obliged to find out for himself what Israel had to gain from closer ties with Moscow. Russia is becoming more and more influential in determining Middle East affairs against the growing passivity of the Obama administration – a situation Israel cannot afford to ignore. Neither is Netanyahu indifferent to Putin’s expanding role in developing the back-channel between Washington and Tehran.

Netanyahu last met Putin in May when he made the trip to the Black Sea resort of Sochi to urge the Russian leader not to supply Syria with S-300 anti-aircraft batteries.

The coming visit will have a wider agenda, including Syria and the ongoing negotiations with the Palestinians sponsored by the United States. But the most central issue will no doubt be Iran and its nuclear program.  That visit will no doubt overshadow Secretary Kerry’s talks in Jerusalem and the Palestinian Authority and his reproof on the sluggish pace of their peace talks.