WarSclerotic

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.

Iran Guards Test Missiles, Warn Enemies – NYTimes.com.

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran’s Revolutionary Guards test-fired five missiles during war games in a waterway crucial for global oil supplies on Sunday, and a commander warned the Islamic Republic’s enemies they would regret any attack.

Iran, which is locked in a dispute with the West over its nuclear programme, often announces advances in its military capabilities and tests weaponry in an apparent bid to show its readiness for any strikes by Israel or the United States.

The Guards’ exercises in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz coincided with rising tension between Iran and the West, which says Tehran’s nuclear work is aimed at making bombs. Iran denies this.

Last week, the Pentagon said U.S. military action against Iran remained an option even as Washington pursues diplomacy and sanctions to halt the country’s atomic activities.

Speaking on the drills’ fourth day, Guards commander Massoud Jazayeri said Iran had a deterrence plan which would make the enemy “regretful” if they launched any attack against the country, the official IRNA news agency reported.

He also reiterated Iran’s position that foreign forces in the region should leave, apparently referring to the presence of U.S. troops in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Those who came from (far away) to our region must leave, because we consider them as the enemy,” he said.

Semi-official Fars News Agency said Guards’ naval units fired five missiles at a target, without making clear if they were newly designed missiles.

“Despite the different places from which the missiles were fired , they all hit the target simultaneously and completely destroyed it,” Fars said.

The missiles were surface-to-surface and surface-to-sea.

A second Guards commander, Brigadier General Ali Hajizadeh, said mass production of a new reconnaissance drone which was tested in the exercise would soon be launched, Fars reported.

On Thursday, Iranian media said the Guards successfully tested a new speedboat capable of destroying enemy ships.

The United States is pushing for a fourth round of U.N. sanctions on Tehran over its refusal to halt sensitive nuclear activities as demanded by the U.N. Security Council, including proposed moves against members of the Guards.

Israel, widely believed to have the Middle East’s only atomic arsenal, has described Iran’s nuclear programme as a threat to its existence and has not ruled out military action.

Iran, a predominantly Shi’ite Muslim state, has said it would respond to any attack by targeting U.S. interests in the region and Israel, as well as closing the Strait of Hormuz. About 40 percent of the world’s traded oil leaves the Gulf region through the strategic narrows.

Alan Dershowitz: An Invitation To J Street From Alan Dershowitz.

I’m delighted with Jeremy Ben-Ami’s answer to my direct question. Ben-Ami, speaking for J Street, now says that American wars and casualties “do not find their roots in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and it would be absurd to adhere to such a simplistic causal analysis.” This answer is important for several reasons. First, it puts J Street directly in conflict with many on the hard left, including some of J Street’ own supporters, who have publicly stated that American casualties are directly caused by Israel’s alleged refusal to make peace. Second, it puts J Street directly in conflict with views attributed (falsely one hopes) to Vice President Joe Biden and General David Petraeus. Biden was quoted as telling Prime Minister Netanyahu, “what you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops.” And General Petraeus has been quoted as saying that Israeli intransigents “could cost American lives.”
I am personally delighted that J Street is distancing itself from these false and dangerous arguments, because my goal in engaging Ben-Ami has always been to persuade J Street to join the large pro-Israel consensus on issues relating to Israel’s security. I extended that invitation to him at our debate at the 92nd Y and continue to extend it now. It is important that the pro-Israel community speak with one voice on Israel’s security, even while engaging in healthy disagreement on issues relating to the settlements, Jerusalem, etc.
It is important that J Street publicly announce its rejection of the linkage argument between Israel’s actions and American casualties. When this argument was all over the media and being quickly adopted by the likes of Walt and Mearsheimer, Patrick Buchanan, Joe Klein and Roger Cohen, J Street was silent. When I condemned this argument in my speech at AIPAC, I received no support from J Street. It is not enough for Jeremy Ben-Ami to agree with me when pressed with a direct question. It is important for J Street to get out front and publicly criticize those making this argument, even when they are members of the Obama Administration. I hope J Street will join me in doing so.
On a more fundamental level, I hope J Street will accept my invitation to work together and to try to speak with one voice when it comes to protecting Israel’s security.
Now it’s my turn to answer Ben-Ami’s direct question to me. Of course there is an American national interest in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Every country in the world has some national interest in bringing peace to that region. But I believe that the new emerging policy of the Obama Administration exaggerates the extent of our national interest in forcing a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that J Street has encouraged that exaggeration by claiming that it is “critical” to American strategic interests. I believe that very little will change in the Middle East, with regard to the major threats we face from Iran, Al Qaeda and Islamic extremism, by a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, desirable as that would be. And, of course, much depends on how the conflict is resolved–whether a resolution encourages or discourages further attacks against Israel, and whether it increases or decreases the likelihood of future wars. A “bad” peace that does not assure Israel’s security will not serve either American or Israeli interests.
I do not believe, as Ben-Ami does that, “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [is] a centerpiece of [extremists] recruitment.” The centerpiece is Israel’s very existence, as well as American presence on Muslim land. I do not believe that Israel is the reason for “the rising influence of Iran in the region and its quest for nuclear weapons.” Nor do I believe that resolving it would help to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
This leads me to my final challenge to J Street: Do you believe that if America fails to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and if the Israeli government makes a considered decision that it must use military action, as a last resort, to prevent Iran from being able to deploy nuclear weapons, that Israel would have the right to engage in preventive self defense by attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities? I am not asking whether Israel should or should not consider such attack, since I lack the military expertise to make that decision, as do you. I am asking whether Israel should have the right to make that decision. And I’m asking whether you believe the United States should seek to prevent Israel from acting on that decision as an absolute last resort?
Finally, I think this exchange has been healthy in bringing us together on some issues, while exposing differences on others. I still believe that J Street should join with mainstream pro-Israel organizations in speaking with one voice–even issuing joint statements–on security issues on which there is substantial, even if not perfect, agreement, and I extend an invitation to Jeremy Ben-Ami to continue to dialogue with me and others on these important issues.

‘US dislikes Obama’s Israel approach’.

Report: Iran to buy uranium from Zimbabwe in secret deal – Haaretz – Israel News.
Iran has signed a secret deal with Zimbabwe to mine its untapped uranium reserves, according to a Saturday report in The Sunday Telegraph.

The agreement was secured last month, when Robert Mugabe, a close aide to the Zimbabwean president, visited Tehran.

According to the deal, Iran will supply Zimbabwe oil in exchange for access to potentially huge deposits of uranium ore – which can be converted into basic fuel for nuclear power, or could also be enriched to make nuclear arms.

A Zimbabwean government source has told The Daily Telegraph that “Iran secured the exclusive uranium rights last month when minister of state for Presidential affairs, Didymus Mutasa, visited Tehran. This is when the formal signing of the deal was made, away from the glare of the media.”

The Daily Telegraph also reported that Iran’s stockpiles of uranium, which mostly came from South Africa during the 1970s, has been running low, therefore the apparent deal with Zimbabwe has come at a critical time.

The Zimbabwean government source added that “the uranium deal is the culmination of a lot of work dating back to 2007, when Mr Mugabe visited Tehran in search of fuel. Now Iran is beginning to reap the benefits.

“Iranian geologists have being conducting feasibility studies of the mineral for over a year now and we expect them to go ahead with mining once they are ready.”

Iran’s nuclear ambitions continue to draw concerns from the United States and European allies who fear Iran is seeking the capability to build nuclear weapons. Iran has rebuffed diplomatic overtures to resolve the issue and is in defiance of UN Security Council demands that it suspend uranium enrichment.

Syria threatens to send Israel back to ‘prehistoric times’ – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Roee Nahmias

Obama damages Middle East peace prospects | Midwest Voices.

By E. Thomas McClanahan, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist

President Obama laid down an important marker on the Middle East recently: He declared that settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a “vital national security interest of the United States.”

His predecessors have said much the same thing. But then he upped the ante. He said the chronic failure to settle the conflict was “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.”

Now that drew attention. Obama was claiming a direct link between the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate and the safety of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet neither of Obama’s assertions stand up to scrutiny, and the administration’s ham-handed approach could, at best, succeed only in damaging U.S. credibility.

Obama’s extraordinary recent hostility to Israel is a big departure from the traditional U.S. approach.

The latest flashpoint was an apparent bureaucratic foulup by Israel, which announced plans for new housing units in Jerusalem right in the middle of a visit by Vice President Joe Biden. The Israeli move was boneheaded, but Obama’s reaction was completely out of proportion.

That takes us to the administration’s approach on Iran. As farfetched as it sounds, Obama’s apparent strategy is to pound on Israel to get the “peace process” moving, in the hope that will draw Arab support for the U.S. effort to curb Iran’s nuclear program.

If that’s the strategy, it makes little sense, as Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations argued recently. If Tehran senses friction between Israel and the United States, it will only “harden its nuclear stance.” The mullahs will assume Israel won’t dare attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in the midst of a squabble with Washington.

The belief that Israeli-Palestinian peace is the key to the entire region is based on a falsehood, writes Aaron David Miller, a former State Department official who served as a Middle East adviser to Republican and Democratic administrations.

Miller’s recent article in Foreign Policy, “The False Religion of Mideast Peace,” ought to be required reading in the Obama White House. Miller writes as a former believer who realizes that whether or not the “religion” was true in the past, it is no longer as relevant.

Certainly it would help if the Palestinians and Israelis could settle their differences. The long-running struggle feeds Arab anger. But it is not a magic key to resolving other regional challenges, such as the future of Pakistan or the threat of Iran, not to mention a successful resolution to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These days, Miller writes, doggedly pursuing “Arab-Israeli peacemaking” is the equivalent of “tilting at windmills.”
Big decisions require strong leaders. But Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu presides over a divided coalition, and his counterpart, Mahmoud Abbas, presides over a broken national movement riven by the schism with Hamas.

Obama has botched his opening moves. He demanded that Israel scrap plans for the Jerusalem housing project, as well as all other such plans in the city. Netanyahu refused.

The State Department response? A climbdown: Washington acknowledged that Jerusalem’s future would be decided by negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians — Israel’s position all along.

In his Foreign Policy piece, Miller essentially accused the administration of incompetence. He didn’t use the word, but the message was clear. Obama went to the mat over an issue — housing in Jerusalem — without connecting it to a larger strategy “whose dividends would make the fight worthwhile.”

In other words, the rookies in Washington escalated a spat without any purpose in mind other than perhaps impressing the Arabs.

“In the spring of 2010 we’re nowhere near a breakthrough, and yet we’re in the middle of a major rift with the Israelis,” Miller wrote. “Unless we achieve a big concession, we will be perceived to have backed down again.”

Amid these pratfalls, there’s talk of the administration coming up with its own settlement and ramming it down the throats of the Palestinians and Israelis.

Right. That would work about as well as everything else this crew has tried.

The moment of decision – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Eitan Haber