Obama explains: Will Israel listen?

S P SETH

It is not often that a US president feels the need to explain his policies to an aggrieved country, unless that country happens to be Israel. And that is precisely what President Obama recently did in an extensive interview with the New York Times’ influential columnist Thomas L. Friedman. It concentrated mostly on explaining the rationale of the recent nuclear framework deal with Iran, the final agreement to be fleshed out by end June. Interestingly, it was Obama who invited Friedman in order to expound his views and policy on the subject. Generally, it is journalists who seek interviews with a country’s leader. By taking the initiative to explain, Obama obviously felt the need to explain to Israel and the Zionist lobby in the US that in seeking a diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue, he was not acting against Israel’s interests. Indeed, he was putting Iran’s nuclear programme under the most stringent inspection regime for ten or more years, and that will serve Israel’ s security interests. And besides, if it doesn’t work the US will continue to have other options.  

The first thing he emphasized was that Iran was not some giant that is unstoppable. It can be contained and deterred. Indeed it is worth engaging with Iran diplomatically. And if “we can resolve these issues [constraining Iran’s nuclear capability] diplomatically we are more likely to be safe, more likely to be secure, in a better position to protect our allies, and who knows? Iran may change. If it doesn’t, our deterrence capabilities, our military superiority stays in place … We’re not relinquishing our capacity to defend ourselves or our allies.  In that situation, why wouldn’t we test it [the diplomatic path].” It seems pretty simple and straightforward. In simple language, Iran might be clobbered if it didn’t follow the straight and narrow path laid down for them in a nuclear accord.

The point, though, is that Israel is not interested in any nuclear deal with Iran short of abandonment or destruction of its nuclear capability. With this basic parameter, what leads Obama to think that his message would get through? Apparently, he believes that making a direct pitch to the Israeli people over Netanyahu’s shrill rhetoric might work and give him the necessary political space at home to sort out the nuclear issue. Taking on board Israel’s security concerns from an Iran with any nuclear capability, Obama said in his interview that, “… But what I would say to them (Israeli people] is that not only am I absolutely committed to making sure that they maintain their qualitative military edge, and they can deter any potential future attacks, but what I’m willing to do is to make the kinds of commitments that would give everybody in the neighbourhood, including Iran, a clarity that if Israel were to be attacked by any state, that we would stand by them.” He added, “And that, I think, should be sufficient to take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see whether or not we can at least take the nuclear issue off the table.”

But will that convince Israel? As of now, it seems highly unlikely for two reasons. First, they don’t trust Obama. Second, and more importantly, they don’t trust Iran. On the first, most Israelis found him a bit evangelical on the broad question of seeking reconciliation with the Islamic world not long after he became President. His Cairo speech in 2009 riled Israel because it was not consulted.  It was delivered without clearing it with the Israeli government, which is used to vetting or vetoing US policy on the Middle East. At the same time, the Obama administration started unsuccessfully, as it turned out, its peace initiative on the two state formula on Israel-Palestine relations, gently goading Israel to temporarily, at least, halt its settlement policy. Which enraged Israel, and it showed its anger by continuing to build new settlements.

Obama and, later, his secretary of state, John Kerry, seemed on a mission to promote the two-state formula, even telling Tel Aviv that this was in Israel’s interest. Which seemed preposterous to the Netanyahu government as if Obama knew better than them what was or wasn’t in Israel’s interest? Obama’s Palestine policy might seem well meaning but was not regarded as serving Israel’s interests. And above all, pushing a deal with Iran on its nuclear programme was regarded certainly as not well-meaning, to put it mildly. Indeed, Obama was left in no doubt that Israel was not happy with Obama’s Middle Eastern politics.

Which pained Obama. He told Friedman, “It has been personally difficult for me to hear… expressions that somehow… this administration has not done everything it could to look out for Israel’s interest ---and the suggestion that when we have very serious policy differences, that that’s not in the context of a deep and abiding friendship and concern and understanding of the threats that the Jewish people have faced historically and continue to face.”

The personal chemistry between Obama and Netanyahu didn’t work as the latter behaved more like that the new President needed some coaching about how to conduct his Middle Eastern policy. And as Obama seemed a bit ‘obdurate’, Netanyahu started to play internal politics with the US system. It was reflected in his preference for Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate in the last election, his keenness to address the US Congress and make a pitch against a prospective nuclear deal with Iran, followed up by some US congressmen cautioning Iran that any deal with the Obama administration could be reversed by the US legislature. In other words, the Netanyahu government was seeking to undermine Obama by working against him through the US’s internal political processes.

Obama though seems keen to push ahead with the nuclear deal. As he told Friedman, “We know that a military strike or a series of military strikes can set back Iran’s nuclear programme for a period of time--- but almost certainly prompt Iran to rush towards a bomb…” But the framework deal, when hopefully fleshed out by end-June, will seriously constrain their nuclear path for the next 10 or more years with a stringent inspection regime “able to inspect and verify what’s happening along the entire nuclear chain from the uranium mines all the way through to the final facilities like Natanz… Iran will be subject to the kinds of inspections and verification mechanisms that have never been put in place before.”

While Obama’s pitch with the Israeli people is well meaning and cogently argued, it is not likely to make any real impact.   

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au