Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Takes on Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and Iran's Nuclear Programme in One Massive Gamble
The Obama administration's approach to two of the world's most intractable and dangerous problems, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Iran's nuclear programme, is to link them together in the search for a solution to both.
Jewish settlers discuss biblical text at the former Israeli army outpost of Shdema, south of Jerusalem. The future of such outposts will prove crucial to a Middle East peace treaty. Photograph: Gali Tibbon. (Photo: The Guardian) The new US strategy aims to use its Iran policy to gain leverage on Binyamin Netanyahu's government.
Sanctions planned against Iran's energy sector if Tehran does not compromise on uranium enrichment by the end of next month are not only aimed at pre-empting Israeli military action; they are also a bargaining chip offered in part exchange for a substantial freeze on Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
"The message is: Iran is an existential threat to Israel; settlements are not," said one official close to the negotiations.
However, the strategy is fraught with risks. Coupling the two huge complex issues could end up complicating them further. Moves against Iran's oil and gas industry could also end up destroying hard-won multilateral co-ordination, by alienating Russia and China, while failing to inflict much damage on the Iranian regime. Memories of Iraqi sanctions-busting are still fresh.
"This idea that a petroleum embargo is a silver bullet for the Iran problem is misguided. Iran has a lot of land borders," a European official said.
For the strategy to work, such potentially fundamental flaws will have to be ironed out soon. The Middle East peace process and the international stand-off over Iran's nuclear programme are heading towards a critical shared deadline at the end of next month.
By the time the UN general assembly and the G20 leaders convene, between 23 and 25 September, Washington wants to have struck a preliminary deal between Israel and the Arab world, to allow Barack Obama to outline a new peace plan, probably at the general assembly. At the same time, Iran must show compromise over its enrichment of uranium, or the wheels will start turning towards punitive sanctions.
Time is therefore short, but the initial signs of synergy are promising.
Netanyahu is heartened by what he sees as US and western European determination to impose "crippling" sanctions on Iran, a phrase used by Hillary Clinton that the Israeli prime minister repeated at his meeting with Gordon Brown.
Israel is no longer threatening military action to curtail Iran's nuclear programme, and Netanyahu is signalling readiness to bargain on the Jewish settlements.
European diplomats believe Netanyahu will be better able to keep his coalition together through a freeze on settlements if he can demonstrate western resolve on Iran.
Meanwhile, the Gulf Arab states are increasingly nervous about the prospect of a nuclear Iran, and the offer of a US security umbrella, hinted at by Clinton last month, will help cement their contribution to an Israeli-Palestinian deal, in the form of recognition.
However, two big question marks hang over this strategy. Can sanctions against Iran's oil and gas sector work, and can they generate sufficient regional momentum both to restart Israeli-Palestinian talks and to carry those negotiations through to a settlement before the end of Obama's first term, as the White House is hoping?
Middle East analysts in Washington share the growing confidence of the Obama administration that he can secure a deal on resuming talks. But they are sceptical that the gap will be easily or quickly closed between an Israeli government filled with rightwing hawks, a weak Palestinian leadership and cautious Arab states.
Even if all the pieces were to fall into place for Obama, they doubt a peace deal could be achieved and implemented in less than six to seven years. Aaron David Miller, a former state department adviser on Arab-Israeli affairs, said: "I think they will succeed in getting some sort of announcement and event. Beyond that, I doubt they will get an agreement on the big issues."
Miller, author of The Much Too Promised Land: America's Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace, said he expected the Israelis and Palestinians would quickly become deadlocked over borders, the future of Jerusalem and the future of Palestinian refugees.
The main decision for Obama then would be whether he waits until the Israelis and Palestinians have exhausted negotiations and steps in to bridge the gap, or whether he lays down a rough idea of the US's envisaged peace settlement early on.
David Makovsky, who co-authored a book on the Middle East with White House adviser Dennis Ross, said: "I think the US will only put forward a bridging proposal after negotiations. You can bridge over a lake or river but not an ocean. They will not put forward an Obama plan. He cannot come in at beginning but only at end."
Meanwhile, by hitching prospects of Middle East peace to the west's ability to curb Iran's nuclear programme, Washington is increasing the chance that a breakdown in Iran policy will upset the precarious Israeli-Palestinian balance.
One variant of the plan is to target Iran's dependence on foreign petroleum. Iran has the third biggest proven oil reserves in the world, but decades of under-investment means that the country imports 40% of the petrol and diesel it needs to keep its economy functioning, much of it from the United Arab Emirates and India. It is a significant vulnerability, but exploiting it will be problematic.
Imposing an embargo by gunboat would be tantamount to an act of war. Punishing oil trading companies who sold sell to Iran would trigger bitter trade rows, and invite the widespread sanctions-busting witnessed throughout the attempt to isolate Iraq in the 1990s.
Getting UN-mandated sanctions on Iran's oil and gas sector would mean convincing Russia and China, and that will be a tough sell. China in particular is reliant on Iranian oil and gas. One suggestion is to have Saudi Arabia fill the gap in China's energy needs for the duration of sanctions, in the hope of winning Chinese compliance and avoiding an oil price spike that could reverse the tentative signs of recovery in the global economy. But the response of the Iranian regime will remain a wild card, and financial markets will be easily spooked by any trouble in the global oil trade.
Another, less risky alternative would be to cut sales of equipment and technology that Iran needs to develop its oil and gas production and exports. The tactic would be less dependent on Russian and Chinese co-operation, as the best technology in the field still comes from the west, but its impact might not be sufficiently immediate to maintain Israeli support.
The Obama administration is setting out to juggle two potentially explosive global crises, while walking the tightrope of a shaky and nervous global economy. It is not going to be easy, but Washington appears to have decided it has no option but to try.
23 Comments so far
Show AllThis is only a repackaging of our continued botched foreign policy (handed off from Bush to Obama): linking the imperialistic foreign policies against Iran who even our own intelligence reports indicate Iran has no nuclear weapons plans, to the sleight of hand Israeli action in what is called a "substantial" freeze on settlements, which will still excludes East Jerusalem and "natural" settlement group, and does nothing to stop the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and imprisonment, raids..., nor does it even stop the construction already started. However, MSM is sure to bite on this as progress and a sacrifice by Israel.
This is fundamentally about maintaining Israel's nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. Is there a silver lining to the Israel's mushroom cloud? Israel's benefactor/sugar daddy is operating with borrowed funds and the days of willful unchecked belligerence by the Israelis are numbered.
In fact, if there is a real concern over the use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East (and not the High School science project that the Iranian government is sponsoring) it is that Israel with the imperial hegemon absent from the scene is much more likely to use one of the two hundred or so nuclear weapons it possesses. The state of Israel feeling itself "existentially" threatened would not hesitate to use a nuclear weapon.
Hope I'm wrong!
Why not.....this administration is dabbling in every other stream that goes by....except paying attention to our economy and economic future.
President Emmanuel could cut off aid to israel who is an active threat to many nations.
Palestinian - israel balance? what world is that phrase from?
As I understand it Iran has every legal right in the world to develope an atomic bomb and needs about two hundred of them with accurate delivery systems in order to be a deterrent to the zionist threat.
An act of war? USA always attempts to achieve peace through war, is that because they are so brilliant and peace loving?
Since when is another countries paranoia the command center for USA policies?
Glenn: A most sensible comment. Somebody wake me up when the "peace process" gets somewhere.
What is new about this? The U.S. continues to grovel at Israel's feet, and the world continues to exempt Israel from international law and human decency.
It's like Obama's healthcare plan, which will reward the insurance companies for agreeing to be slightly less abusive.
Meanwhile, the apartheid state of Israel continues its slow-motion Holocaust against the Palestinians, and its theft of Palestinian land and water resources, just as the insurance companies continue to gorge themselves on our premiums while continuing their predatory practices.
"a substantial freeze on Jewish settlements"? What does that mean?... other than continued illegal occupation?
and "Sanctions planned against Iran's energy sector"? as if the US doesn't already attempt to restrict Iranian trade?...What is new about this? Unless the US is threatening an illegal military seige of Iran?
So...the deal is the Israelis get the green light for continued military occupation of Palestine, "in exchange for" the US making further threats against Iran on Israel's behalf?
How stupid are Americans?
The US Executive and Congress justified the invasion of Iraq by accusing Iraq of violating US Security Council resolutions (they weren't - it was lies and deceits, just like now and the current flap with the IAEA report and el-Baradei and Iran*).
Israel continues to violate resolutions and the US hands over $ 7 million/day.
Once again this administration and Congress carry on the hypocritical policies of the Empire.
* Gareth Porter has an article at Asia Times, where I also suggest you find and addict yourself to reading the 'Mogambo Guru'.
For Christmas this year locust is going to ask Santa Claus for change I can believe in.
Might as well. Not gonna receive it from this Democratic President or the Democratic-controlled Senate or the Democratic-controlled House of non-Representatives.
Regime change in Iran has been the law of the US for many years now so why would Iran trust anything Obama says?
Iran has offered for it's peaceful nuke power program to be monitored which proves to me it has no intension of building the bomb.
They don't need the bomb because it would be suicidal and they would be wiped out and any nuke used by anyone would be blamed on them... they know these facts.
The reason Israel is backing off their threat to bomb Iran is because Iran has threatened them back that they have conventional missiles that would strike all of Israel's Nuclear power stations so the radiation would not just be in Iran but Israel too.
There is a new military reality now it is not just MAD but Unacceptable Damage and Iran can do that to both Israel and the US in the Gulf and Afghanistan and Iraq.
Netenyahoo wants all of Jerusalem for settlements and control but such a Jerusalem because of its multi religious focal point, will not be accepted by Muslim nations.
None of these facts are mentioned in this sterilized weak article and all articles we will be allowed to read.
Vietnam is stable and is not a threat because we lost.
We need to lose in the Middle East to end our crumbling Empire of Death.
It would be easy for Obama to turn all this over to the UN and instead of Vetoing, Obama should back the UN and its resolutions.
He can end it now or lose later.
Well See.
It's good to see that no one who has commented so far as fallen for the Guardian's cynical realpolitik analysis of U.S. foreign policy, treating the "great gamble" of combining actions toward Iran and Israel as "fraught with risks." (As opposed to outright morally and legally WRONG)
The "deal" if I understand it is that the U.S. responds to Israeli's existential insecurity vis-a-vis Iran by engaging in actions, illegal under international law, to force Iran not to develop that "threat"---in exchange for Israeli ceasing to do something it is already required under international law to do: remove its settlements in Palestine.
If you substitute morality for "risk analysis" in international relations you come up with the "quaint" idea that the peace process in the Middle East would best be served if the U.S. used its huge and perfectly legal power to give or withhold military support for Israel to force that country to do what it will not do (stop settlements) under the pressure of law. Since the real threat to broader Middle East peace is the capacity of ISRAEL itself to deliver nuclear assaults on those whom it deems to be existential threats, the U.S. policy as well should be to act in terms of its own nuclear non-proliferation agreements and work for the nuclear disarmanent of Israel (along with itself). Fraught with danger? Maybe, but at least such policy would show some prospect of actual peace in the region---and would show some respect for law as well.
Iran is a signatory of the NPT - the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel is NOT. Iran has every RIGHT to develop it's Nuclear Program in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, which it is certainly doing. Never heard of Israel inviting international inspectors to observe it's nuclear program! WTF is going on here???
Hypocracy? Double Standard? RealPolitic?
Sounds like BullShit to me.
This is a less “sanitized” version of the same story published in the same news paper Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/25/barack-obama-middle-east-peace
According to this article,
“Israel is offering a nine to 12-month moratorium on settlement building that would exclude East Jerusalem and most of the 2,400 homes that Israel says work has already begun on” in return for crippling sanction against Iran. US, Britain and France are to lead a UNSC push to expand sanction.
”Israel, in return for a deal on settlements, is seeking not only a tougher line over Iran but normalisation of relations with Arab states, such as overflight rights for its airline El Al, establishment of trade offices and embassies, and an end to the ban on travellers with Israeli stamps in their passports.”
Israel is expecting a lot in return for partial and temporaly moratoriun on settelements. They know how to bargain.
chrism: well, now isn't that interesting? Two versions of the story by the same reporters in the same paper, but with a very different "slant." The one you reference I'm not sure I would say is less "sanitized" but much more graphic in details of what the two sides are bargaining about and the politics behind the moves being made in Washington and Tel Aviv; and without any of the "fraught with risk" analysis one sees in the version that CD picked up. What it all means, I don't quite know, but it does show how one story can be "spun" in two different directions in the same paper by the same authors. In general, I have the impression that the Guardian tends to carry water on both shoulders when it comes to support or critique of U.S.A. foreign policy, and this may be water for both "shoulders."
Pretty lopsided deal!
What Mordechai Vanunu, The Whistle Blower of Israels' WMD Program told me:
"No one should ignore the fact that Atomic weapons are in Israel and that it was France most especially who helped build the Dimona reactor in 1960. No one should forget that France was the first state to start nuclear weapons proliferation in secret, not Iran.
"The world's problem with Iran is the obligation to help the people of Iran to have freedom and democracy; free from a dictator regime.The problem is not nuclear weapons in Iran but the need for freedom for all the people. I am not at all supporting this Ayatollahs regime in Iran. This regime should be ended and replaced by freedom and democracy for all Iran people.
"The same goes for Israel too, which is only a democracy if you are a Jew. The Israeli problem is the Jewish apartheid regime.
"No nuclear weapons program is a true deterrent or safeguard mechanism for security because Atomic weapons can only bring destruction. Atomic weapons are a mechanism of self destruction.
"How can Israel, the only country in the Middle East known to have a nuclear weapons program expects all others not to even have peaceful nuclear energy programs?
"Since Israel has the Bombs, then they can not speak with credibility about stopping all the Middle East states from having at least Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Science and Technology.
"Israel by all its nuclear secret activities opened the way for any state to do the same. My view is that Nuclear Science and technology must be part of any modern state and society, so all the world and every state should have it.
"After almost 50 years of secret nuclear activities and productions of bombs, America, France and the entire world should also intervene and demand Israel sign the NPT, follow all of the IAEA orders, regulations and restrictions.
"Instead, Israel puts on me distractions. The real issue in both states is democracy before any thing else and Israel is only a democracy if you are a Jew.
"I fulfilled my sentence of 18 years in prison because I listened to my conscience and reported the truth that Israel was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. It is over four years now that Israel has held me captive in East Jerusalem; forbidding me to speak to any foreigners or to leave the state, which is all I want to do.
"For 18 years in prison I felt like a man at a train station, waiting for my train. I lived in a six by nine foot space without a window for 18 years. Every day I would get up, get dressed, put on my shoes, look at the same four walls and wait for that train that never came.
"Now I live in a nine by nine space with four walls, I have a window to the Mount of Olives and the street. But, I live like a tourist without even a TV in a cheap hotel and all I want to do is leave Jerusalem. I am no longer waiting for a train. Now I am at the airport terminal waiting for my plane."
The Rest of "The "Big Get" Don Hewitt and "60 Minutes" Didn't Get"
http://www.wearewideawake.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1370&Itemid=223
Thanks for posting that link, Eileen, it's invaluable. Hope all is well.
From the article: "Israel is no longer threatening military action"
Didn't Israel send a submarine armed with nuclear weapons south through the Suez canal, and didn't it leak 6 years ago that one of the prime reasons for sub-launched nukes was to threaten Iran?
Words are BS. The actions are clear.
"The new US strategy aims to use its Iran policy to gain leverage on Binyamin Netanyahu's government."
The utter hypocrisy of that statement. So, Obama is gonna whack Iran in exchange for Netanyahu's promise to "think about it" while in the background the illegal settlements continue, the genocide and Apartheid of the Palestinians go on and the billions of American taxpayer dollars flows on.
If Obama wants to do one thing right during his administration, why doesn't he have the balls to pull the plug on Israel? And, I know, I know, I know...will never happen, I know!
This plan has the level of promise that Obama is becoming known for...none! The Israelis don't have to think about a temporary freeze of "settlements". They have to stop stealing the land entirely. They have to remove the people and structures from the land they've already stolen and they have to give it back. Regarding Iran. They are only following the rules set out through the NPT, which they are signatories to. The US and Israel have to stop barking and snarling like mad dogs. The rest of us are getting pretty tired of it.
According to 'Jewish Voices for Peace, "US military aid to Israel has a dramatic effect on Israel's policies toward the Palestinians." It is " U.S. funding that pays for the guns and ammunitions, F-16 bombers and Apache helicopters that are used to carry out Israel's occupation of Palestinian land."
It is U.S. dollars "that have been used to destroy homes, uproot trees and crops, seize land from its lawful owners and close access to food and medicine. The article goes on to say that" when Palestinian doctors remove bullets from the bodies of Palestinian children, the bullets are typically stamped Made in America." My question then is: Can any good come from supporting such obvious evil?
Jewish Voices for Peace also tells us that "in fiscal year 2003 Israel recieved a foreign military grant of $3.1 billion and a $600 million grant for economic security in addition to $11 billion in commercial loan guarentees. This total aid package of $15 billion makes Israel the largest single recipient of U.S. aid." My question then is: How can we afford to be so generous to Israel when we are being told that the US is dependent on borrowed money to run its own show?
Ragdoll
Now we have the extraordinary comedy of Israel bargaining to keep land it has stolen in exchange for not mass-murdering God knows how many innocent Iranians in pre-emptive bombings.
That Obama is even dealing in such immoral rot is terribly disappointing.
Somehow,the only term that comes to my mind is ownership ---- just who owns whom and for what price????