Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Despite Smiles, Obama and Netanyahu Seem Far Apart

Despite recent face-to-face talks, it seems clear that President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu view Iran and the Israel-Palestine peace process from divergent angles...

(Inter Press Service)

While reaffirming the “special relationship” between their two countries, U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared unable to bridge major differences in their approaches to Iran and Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts following their May 18 White House meeting.

While Obama said he may be prepared to impose additional sanctions against Iran early next year if diplomatic efforts to persuade it to curb its nuclear program fail to make progress, he refused to set what he called “an arbitrary deadline.” Israeli officials had pressed Washington for an early October deadline.

And while Obama repeatedly stressed the importance of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Netanyahu never uttered the phrase or alluded to the possibility of a Palestinian state during a 30-minute press appearance with the U.S. president after their meeting in the Oval Office.

“My view is less one of terminology than substance,” Netanyahu said, adding a number of pre-conditions for any final settlement.

“If … the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, if they fight terror, they educate their children for peace and for a better future, then I think we can come to a substantive solution that allows the two peoples to live side by side in security and peace,” Netanyahu said, stressing that he was nonetheless eager “to resume negotiations [with the Palestinians] as rapidly as possible.”

Netanyahu also declined to respond to explicit calls by Obama to both stop Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories and address the humanitarian situation in Gaza.  (Israel and Egypt have imposed a strict blockade on Gaza that has prevented any reconstruction of the areas devastated by Israel’s three-week military campaign in December and January.)

“Israel is going to have to take some difficult steps as well,” Obama told the press. “I shared with the prime minister the fact that under the Road Map, under Annapolis, there is a clear understanding that we have to make progress on settlements, that settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward.”

“The fact is that if the people of Gaza have no hope, if they can’t even get clean water at this point, if the border closures are so tight that it is impossible for reconstruction and humanitarian efforts to take place, then that is not going to be a recipe for Israel’s long-term security or a constructive peace track to move forward,” he noted, adding that Washington intends to become a “strong partner” in any peace process.

The talks, which Obama called “extraordinarily productive,” were perhaps the most widely anticipated of any the newly-elected president has held with a foreign leader since his inauguration. Unlike George W. Bush, Obama has repeatedly insisted he will make a two-state solution a top priority of his foreign policy, explaining that he sees such a settlement as critical to stabilizing the Greater Middle East, including Afghanistan and Pakistan, and defeating Al Qaeda and like-minded groups.

Jordan’s King Abdullah, the first regional leader to visit Obama at the White House, already voiced that view just prior to Netanyahu’s visit. Obama will certainly hear more arguments for the two-state solution during upcoming meetins with beleaguered Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Obama’s determination to conclude a two-state settlement clearly clashes with the agenda of Netanyahu’s new right-wing government. Netanyahu not only publicly opposes such a solution, but his top priority is preventing Iran—by military means, if necessary—from obtaining a nuclear-weapons capability, a capability which some senior Israeli intelligence officials claim Iran may acquire as soon as the end of this year.

Indeed, Netanyahu and his allies among U.S. neoconservatives and other elements of the so-called Israel Lobby have argued that Israel cannot be expected to advance the peace process when it faces the “existential” threat posed by a nuclear Iran, particularly given Tehran’s support for Hamas, which controls Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Until that threat is addressed, they insist, little or no progress can be achieved on the Palestinian front.

But Obama explicitly rejected that thesis Monday. While recognizing “Israel’s legitimate concerns” about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he said, “If there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way.”

“To the extent that we can make peace … between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with the potential Iranian threat,” he said.

The appearance of the two leaders before reporters followed a lengthy private meeting, which reportedly lasted a full hour longer than anticipated—an indication, according to retired U.S. Ambassador to Israel Samuel Lewis, that they failed to agree to on key issues. In addition, the two sides also failed to issue a joint statement summarizing the talks, another indication of disagreement, according to Lewis.

On Iran, Obama offered new details about U.S. diplomatic strategy . He suggested that Washington was holding off on engaging Tehran in earnest until after its elections next month.

After elections are completed, he said, “We are hopeful that … there is going to be a serious process of engagement, first with the P5 Plus 1 process, which is already in place; potentially through additional direct talks between the United States and Iran.”

“We should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction and whether the parties involved are making progress and that there’s a good-faith effort to resolve differences,” he said, stressing that that “doesn’t mean every issue would be resolved by that point.”

Obama also stressed that the dangers posed by Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons are such that although no “artificial deadline” will be imposed, “we’re not going to have talks forever. We’re not going to create a situation in which the talks become an excuse for inaction while Iran proceeds with developing and deploying a nuclear weapon.”

He suggested that Washington would proceed to seek international support for tougher sanctions against Iran, but did not mention possible military action, as Netanyahu no doubt had hoped.

“I assured the prime minister that we are not foreclosing a range of steps, including much stronger international sanctions, in assuring that Iran understand that we are serious,” Obama said.

In his own remarks, Netanyahu appeared to try to broaden this formulation to include possible military action, saying, “I very much appreciate, Mr. President, your firm commitment to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear military capability, and also your statement that you’re leaving all options on the table.”

Jim Lobe writes for the Inter Press Service and is a regular contributor to PRA’s Right Web, http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org. You can find Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe. Additional reporting by Ali Gharib.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share