Anyone listening to what’s being said about Iran by the White House and State Department lately could easily be convinced stopping the ayatollah’s nuclear program is one of Washington’s top priorities. But the public “disappointment” being expressed in Israel by senior members of the Netanyahu government tells a different story. While the New York Times was reporting a few days ago that American diplomats were going all out to persuade Japan, South Korea and even China to comply with American sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank as part of a prelude to a U.S.-led oil embargo of the Islamist state, the Israelis seem to be reading from a different playbook.
Though Prime Minister Netanyahu himself has registered support for Obama’s sanctions drive, his chief political deputy today contradicted him and denounced the administration’s cautious approach to pressuring Iran. And though the White House issued a statement summarizing a phone conversation between Obama and Netanyahu on Thursday that emphasized U.S.-support for Israeli security, reports out of Israel about the talk lead one to believe the focus of the chat was something else entirely: an American demand that Israel promise not to attack Iran on its own.
According to the Times, the U.S. is promising Asian nations which rely on Iranian oil that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations that share Israel’s fears about Tehran obtaining nuclear weapons will make up for any shortages they experience if the embargo goes forward. But the same piece pointed out that America’s Arab allies could only provide the additional oil for a limited time. That caveat about the potential pitfalls of an embargo has led China to declare its absolute opposition to any further sanctions on Iran.
Netanyahu sought to encourage the drive for tougher sanctions when he said this week that “for the first time, I see Iran wobble” in the face of the restrictions placed on its commerce. Yet Deputy Moshe Ya’alon gave a far less sanguine evaluation of the American effort when he said Saturday the government was worried about the president’s willingness to take the crucial next step in the process: an oil embargo. He openly speculated that Obama’s fears about the political impact of a rise in gas prices was the reason why the administration was opposed to the congressional vote on sanctioning Iran’s Central Bank as well as to the implementation of the measure.
That’s where the different spins about this week’s Obama-Netanyahu call phone come into play. The White House statement read like a Democratic Party campaign appeal to American Jews when it said:
The President reiterated his unshakable commitment to Israel’s security, and the President and the Prime Minister promised to stay in touch in the coming weeks on these and other issues of mutual concern.
As JTA’s Ron Kampeas says in an attempt at translation, what Obama was really saying to Netanyahu was:
I, Barack Obama, am serious about squeezing Iran hard, which is what you have been seeking.
I, Barack Obama, have your back.
But Israeli sources are now saying the purpose of the phone call was to warn Netanyahu not to attack Iran. This would not be the first time Israel has received such a message. Netanyahu has heard this before, but the decision to re-emphasize American opposition to a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities at the same time many in Washington were expressing unhappiness about the way Iranian nuclear scientists have been turning up dead is causing some in Jerusalem to think the U.S. is more worried about an Israeli pre-emptive attack on the existential threat they face than the prospect of an Iranian nuke.
If the American desire to head off an Israeli attack was based on the idea the use of force now would unravel a growing international coalition behind an Iran oil embargo, then such warnings might be justified. But if the U.S. is merely talking about an embargo in order to convince voters Obama is serious about Iran but will never be followed up by action, then Israel’s misgivings are more than justified.
The question here is one of trust. If one believes Obama means business about Iran, then his seeming caution about enforcing the bank ban and desire for Israel to take no military action while an embargo is being planned is entirely sensible. But if, as seems to be the case with many Israelis, you have no faith the president will ever take any concrete action with regard to Iran, than all the diplomatic activity and warnings to Israel are merely attempts to keep things calm during an election year. Unfortunately, after three years of “engagement” with Iran and feckless diplomatic outreach, it’s hard to argue that the skeptics are wrong.
If Obama truly wanted Israel to stand down so he could organize international support for effective acton, he would do everything in his power to reassure her that she was not alone. Instead, his underlings do just the opposite. Secretary of Defense Panetta frets in public over Israel's increasing isolation due to the lack of a settlement with the Palestinians. Secretary of State Clinton publicly worries about the democratic nature of Israeli society and the increasing influence of devout Jews. For what purpose were these statements made but to make Israelis feel more isolated, less confident in their leaders, and more certain that the world would not side with them if they were forced to take unilateral action? What rational people would believe Obama's empty protestations of support? Israelis are not under the spell Obama has cast over so many Americans.
I am sure that obama canceled the missile drill exercise with Israel because the latter refused to assure obama that Israel would sit on its hands and await a deadly sucker-punch from a bully known as iran. n nIsrael is so tiny compared to iran, and the united states, and, yet, Israel is treated as if it is an ogre about to terrorize a local town, rather than vulnerable prey about to be devoured by vastly larger, murderous predators in the nearby jungle!
I would say that the reason it was cancelled was not as the WH stated 'to calm regional fears' since anyone in the know would have known ahead of time it was planned. I believe the reason is that Israel could not secure any guarantees that Obama wouldn't sell or give away Israeli operational intel to Turkey and Iran.
you give Obama every benefit of the doubt, Jonathan, but I'm not as sanguine as you. here's what I think: n nObama could not care less about what happens to Israel, and does not seem to understand the existential threat Iran poses to it. if he didn't have to depend on Jewish votes and Jewish donations, Obama would throw Israel as far under the bus as he possibly could, and as we suspect he promised at the Rashid Khalidi dinner he would, if he ever became president. n nObama also does not care about the price of gas except insofar as it may hurt his chances at reelection. remember the "nudge" theory beloved of liberals that high oil prices are good because they discourage use. Obama bragged about making coal unaffordable, and he's proudly stopping a job-creating ally-helping oil pipeline from Canada. so he's not what you'd call an "energy-smart" president. n nObama's main desire is for Bibi to shut up, stand down, and give in. there's nothing the world hates so much as an uppity Jew! but thank G-d he is. he's also 100 times the leader Barack Obama could ever hope to be.
The US should not permit Israel and her supporters to drag us into war with Iran–most likely by provoking an Iranian attack. This could lead to a regional war, giving Israel the occasion to expel the Palestinians. Such a war might or might not be in the interest of Israel, but not the U.S. Israel is not above using nuclear blackmail (the threat of using her own nukes) to pressure the U.S. into military action against Israel. n nThe best that can be said about this agitation is that it is lunacy.
Nobody in this post is talking about American military action or apocalyptic scenarios about provoking wars or expelling Palestinians but you, driven by emotional fact-challenged fear of Israel and Zionism. Israel is not in Gaza, not in the Palestinian Authority and has no plans for mass expulsion of anybody. This film loop is running between your two ears not out in the world. The question is whether America will move on sanctions, period. That said, Israel and her supporters are not asking your permission to breathe. If Israel finds itself in an existential threat and attacks nuclear facilities by air rather than by sabotage America need not show up for the ensuing Hezbollah reaction against Israeli cities. And won't. Israel can't count on anybody's support any more than Europe's Jews could count on SAC to bomb the railroad tracks leading to Auschwitz. Nobody is going to be dragged into anything. Again, Israel is not pressuring the US for military action; it can't even get Washington to implement sanctions already on the books. This column is not about American military action but American sanctions. The problem is that Obama wishes not to discuss sanctions but about preventing an Israeli military strike that quite frankly Israel is not planning now to carry out. There is no need to hyperventilate.
Be clear, Obama wants Jewish campaign contributions, but THE FIRST DAY of his lame duck Presidency Jan 2013 he will serve up Israel to Iran on a platter. If I were terribly cynical I'd have to say Iran and Obama reached a quiet detente whereby Obama will limit his threats to Iran to rhetoric and Iran will defer its nuclear weapons test till 2013.
Obama is trying to solve a crisis without attacking a nation. What a crazy idea! Let's try diplomacy and use other tools to solve a problem before resorting to war!?!?! n nSeriously, Iran is no where near launching an attack on Israel. No where. They are still a ways away from making a bomb. Why not try sanctions first. I'd say the U.S. is really putting a lot of pressure on Iran. 3 naval fleets are headed for the gulf, and the U.S. is in a constant state of verbal warfare with Iran. Tensions are extremely high right now. n nThe last thing the world wants is another war in the middle east if it is avoidable. Israel should not attack Iran. Not now, not ever. Let the U.S. do it – when it is time. The U.S. has the means to wipe out Irans nuclear capability – the weapons and bunker busting bombs needed. Plus the U.S. can do it without sparking an all-out war. n nIsrael's best interest is to be patient.
The EU and Iran are heading back to negotiations and America will then participate. Iran is not years away from a bomb Manny, about one year. The problem that this column is trying to address is that Obama does not really want to go to the next stage of sanctions, an oil embargo, that's it. That's what this is talking about. Not bombs over Tehran. There is not going to be a war with America in the MIddle East. There will be more talks and if there is a miracle Iran won't go nukes. Without a miracle, it will. No American administration will launch a war to prevent the extermination of Israel. And nobody but Israel right now feels an existential threat, just a strategic issue of proliferation down the road. But Obama's kicking things down the road is not trying to solve a crisis but to avoid what he feels will be a crisis if action is taken to prevent Iranian nukes that could be messy for everyone. Preventing untoward Israeli action is a big concern here; sacrificing Israel is an unfortunate subtext; actually preventing Iranian nukes the play everyone has to go through.