Tuesday, March 6, 2012

The moment of truth

The moment of truth


Prof. Abraham Ben-Zvi

Tuesday’s summit meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama is a key moment in the history of the special relationship between Israel and the U.S. It is a moment when a number of weighty diplomatic and strategic issues will be discussed in their crystallized and purified form, while domestic concerns are equally important to the president. The big question is whether understandings can be reached that are in keeping with Israel’s vital security interests, while at the same time guaranteeing calm and quiet for Obama until election day.

So far, we can say that one of the summit’s goals has already been reached. The very fact that dialogue is taking place guarantees we won’t experience a repeat of the October 1956 fiasco. At the time Israel launched Operation Kadesh, less than a week before presidential elections, without a green light from the Eisenhower administration. The outcome was destructive. An enraged U.S. president – who had been leading in the polls and feared an escalation (especially in light of Britain and France’s involvement), as well as the loss of strongholds of support in the Middle East – suspended all economic aid to Israel, and even examined, for the first time in history, the option of blocking United Jewish Appeal funds.

This time, of course, things are different. In the decades since, strategic relations as well as military, diplomatic and economic cooperation between the two nations have been upgraded. Therefore, even if the understandings reached are not comprehensive, the effort to draw red lines and to jointly define a timetable for economic sanctions (including crippling sanctions that are tantamount to economic warfare) testifies to Jerusalem and Washington’s resolve to confront the Iranian challenge head on.

It’s true that, for the president, this is not an opportune political moment for exercising the military option, despite his aggressive remarks about his willingness to weigh all options regarding Iran. Obama has gained strength in the polls due to a recovery in the U.S. economy (which he doesn’t want to jeopardize with a military initiative he either initiated or condoned) and due to the bitter catfighting among the Republicans.

An escalation on the Iranian front would present the voting public with the contradiction between Obama’s original ideology and the reality prevalent in the Middle East. We must keep in mind that from the start this White House waved the banner of reconciliation with the Muslim world, while trying to anchor U.S. policy in multilateral diplomatic and economic tools – and trying to sever itself from the legacy of George W. Bush.

A sudden conflagration in the Gulf would force Obama to return to an agenda that is diametrically opposed to his fundamental credo (whose primary expression can be found in the American withdrawal from Iraq and its disengagement process from Afghanistan). Nevertheless, despite all the background noise, there is no doubt that the Obama administration is concerned about Iran’s continuing defiance and is determined to step up the pressure until it becomes an all-out economic war, reminiscent of the far-reaching steps initiated by Richard Nixon’s administration four decades ago against Salvador Allende in Chile.

Unlike the sanctions enacted against Libya and North Korea, which bore fruit (in a limited way in North Korea) after many years, the U.S. strategy achieved its goals regarding the Allende regime almost immediately and almost brought about a regime change without direct military intervention. There are also substantial differences in location (Chile was located within America’s traditional sphere of influence) and the nature of the threat. The message coming from Washington must be one of total commitment to Israel’s security (with a willingness to upgrade and deepen that commitment even further).

Israel’s strident warnings can also be used by the administration as a means to directly and indirectly pressure Iran, along with hesitant European players. The question that remains is the timetable and order of priorities for both partners in the special relationship. In other words, will the stiffer sanctions and other compensation awarded to Israel give Netanyahu the crucial safety net he needs, so that he doesn’t have to carry the entire burden of the threat on his shoulders.

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=1487

No comments:

Post a Comment