Noah Pollak has at least found some comic relief in Obama’s “Israel ploy” with China. The old “my buddy here is crazy, don’t know if I can hold him back” routine is as well-worn a device in the soft-power toolkit as it is in Hollywood scriptwriting. We should not, however, buy the credulous, one-dimensional implication of the Washington Post story that a veiled threat to unleash Israel got the Chinese on board for censuring Iran. In Beijing they have plenty of their own intelligence on the Middle East, and they also know a ploy when they see one.
We find a much better explanation for China’s cooperation in this November 19 piece from Reuters on the prognosis for sanctions. It didn’t get much play in the mainstream media, possibly because of the title, “West lowers sights for new Iran sanctions at UN.” It clarifies quite baldly how the cost of bringing East and West together in the P5+1 is being lowered: by accommodating Russia and China and dropping the idea of targeting Iran’s oil and gas sector.
Out in the real world, China is obviously not taking a harder line with Iran. The day before joining the censure motion, the Chinese inked a $6.5 billion gasoline refinery contract with Tehran, the fourth major oil-and-gas contract between the two countries in 2009. China continues to supply gasoline to Iran, as it has been doing openly since September. Beijing’s actual trade posture with Iran has not shifted by even an inch.
Trade may be involved in this drama in another form, however: deal-making with U.S. tariffs. President Obama, under pressure from the unions, has been threatening China with punitive tariffs on key imports, including auto tires and manufactured steel pipes. China strenuously opposes the tariffs, of course, and relief from them is a high priority. In what was very possibly a quid pro quo, the approved tariff schedule for steel pipes — announced simultaneously this past week with China’s agreement to censure Iran — reflected a top rate of only half what the Department of Commerce had proposed in September.
Soft power is all about the horse-trading, of course. But it’s hard to find the “smart” power in this deal. If it was a horse trade, we paid too much. Whether the bait we used was the “Israel threat” or U.S. tariffs, the deal was ultimately set up by lowering to zero the cost of China’s participation. The censure motion is a meaningless gesture that carries no guaranteed consequences, a concession so costless to China that we should have paid nothing for it.
Undeterred, Iran is doubling down on its recalcitrance by announcing plans for new uranium-enrichment sites. We might almost suppose that the Iranian regime was scoffing at all this fascinatingly clever soft power — or at least smirking a little.
My biggest regret — a frivolous one to be sure — is that Israel hasn’t legitimized Hamas just to see how Mubarak likes it. Of course he, the Jordanians and the Saudis are more than happy to have the IDF fight the jihadis for them. And that in turn helps explain why they try so little to stop Hamas from shelling Israel. But they must all be frustrated with Olmert, whose patience with Hamas has been almost unlimited.
Speaking of patience, I wonder if Rice intends that the Cole actually be used for anything if Syria or Hezbollah continue to undermine the Lebanese state. Were another war to break out between Israel and Hezbollah, the US could again be caught between mutually antagonistic threats to Lebanese sovereignty. That didn’t work out especially well in 1983. One solution might be for her to suggest in advance to Olmert that, should another crisis materialize, he attack Syria all but exclusively. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?
the idea that the US has lebanons best interst at heart is pretty laughable considering their support for it’s bombardement during last summers war. we all so that huge paiting of condi with vampire fangs.
“while Saudi Arabia has compared Israel’s offensive to Nazi war crimes”
israel has compared their own possible next move to the nazis !
Israel has pulled its ground troops from Gaza, and Hamas has declared victory. This happened after an appeal from Washington for an end to violence.
At the same time, the United States launched an air strike on the town of Dobley in Somalia, which is under the control of Islamic militants.
The United States has been extremely wishy-washy about supporting Israel, which has been trying to defend itself and its citizens from rocket attacks ever since it did Gaza a favor by withdrawing in 2005. America should have loudly and clearly supported Israel’s attack on Hamas, just as it should have called for a defeat of Hezbollah when Israel entered Lebanon after the kidnapping of two of its soldiers. Voacl American support might have made a difference against Hezbollah. It might have made a difference against Hamas. If we can launch an air strike against a town in Somalia, we should understand that Israel too ought to defend itself with all the force it has at its disposal.
I meant “vocal,” not “voacl.”
oh yeah. the Us hasn’t done nearly enough for israel. SHEESH
It looks as the chain of command is now Saudis>>Bush>>Rice>>Olmert
While this idea seems bizarre, it has considerable explanatory power.
The whole thing follows a predictable cycle. A terrorist group (Hamas, Hezbollah) launches rockets indiscriminately against Israel. No outrage sounds from anywhere. The Israelis strike back, at which point the media and the UN go into action, highlighting casualties, asking for restraint and criticizing the Israeli reaction as “disproportionate” while paying lip service to the notion of self-defense. (What exactly constitutes a proportionate” response to rocket attacks is never explained). Israel is eventually pressured to back down, and the rockets keep on falling. Actually it’s quite surreal.
ian
You forgot to mention that in addition to all the other odious consequences of the surrealist tragic circle which you so accurately describe, and which we are left to deal with, is also, our own special curse, in the the form of wife-beating, Lesster.
While I have promised myself, any number of times that I would not gratify any of his peurile remarks with a response, here I go, yet again.
Fester, when Vice Defense Minister Vilnai, turkey that he is, made his ill chosen remarks, the gist of what he meant to say was that Hamas would bring down a “disaster” upon the “Palestinians” [shoah] as opposed to “a” or “the” Holocaust ["Ha Shoah"]
Had you, even an elementary grasp of the Hebrew language, or, in the alternate, had you been anything other than the vile creature that you are, you would not, through your despicable remarks and deliberately misleading comments, especially in regard to something as painful and personal as “The Shoah” is to many of the readers of this blog, and through your equally disgusting suggestion that Israel was contemplating Genocide upon the “Palestinian” Arabs, have placed youself in the company of such fine figures as David Irving, Chief Terrorist [West Bank Chapter] Abbas, and loony tunes Ahmadinajad.
For absolute shame on you, and I hope and anticipate that your scurrilous remarks will no longer [dis]grace the worthy pages of Contentions.
ian
A proportionate response would actually be Israel’s military not responding to the rocket attack however they ship over rocket schematics and supplies to Sderot and Ashkelon and encourage them to construct rockets and fire them back over the border. (While denying that they are actually doing this and saying that its rogue elements outside of their control).
No-one could reasonably complain then as Sderot and even Ashkelon would be resisting in like kind.
hamutzi- fine. you neo cons are dinosaurs. I don’t care if your whining leads to me being banned.
“the gist of what he meant to say was that Hamas would bring down a “disaster” upon the “Palestinians” [shoah] as opposed to “a” or “the” Holocaust [”Ha Shoah”]”
oh i see, he ONLY said he would bring down a “disaster” on them. so it’s okay!
“Proportionate response” is one of those great Orwellian terms that only the UN and international diplomacy can come up with. No Israeli reponse is going to be proportionate enough because no one can say what exactly a proportionate response is, except to say that every Israeli response is a priori “disproportionate”. The definition of self-defense arrived at is therefore one where Israel is granted the right to defend itself only to the extent that it defends itself ineffectively, which is just a roundabout way of saying it has no right to defend itself at all. Actually shipping rocket schematics and supplies to Israeli cities to be used at their own discretion is a good start, although to be on the safe side it would be even better if they could get the rockets from Iran. Then even the UN would have trouble complaining, forestalling the criticism that as the Israeli rockets are better, the response is still disproportionate.
lester
are you the “lester” on the Guardians CiF? You share remarkable similarities with that posters views on that august forum.
rice goes to the ME to pressure israel to commit suicide. in fact, olmert has already obliged BEFORE she even arrived, so she is sure to succeed on that.
There is an exactly proportionate response to the missiles: missile for missile. Israel has missiles too. let them shoot one for each hamas missile. let’s see then how the media, UN and EU handle the equivalence.
i suggest to ignore the fester. that’s the best thing for trolls and idiots.
yBA- no. what is that?