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...

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

(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

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was a leading framer of the “global war on terror” and a staunch supporter of aggressive U.S. military action around the world.


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.


Right Web readers will be familiar with Mr. Fleitz, the former CIA officer who once threatened to take “legal action” against Right Web for publicizing reports of controversies he was associated with in the George W. Bush administration. Fleitz recently left his job at the conspiracy-mongering Center for Security Policy to become chief of staff to John Bolton at the National Security Council.


Norm Coleman is chair of the Republican Jewish Coalition and a former senator from Minnesota known for his hawkish views on foreign policy.


Billionaire hedge fund mogul Paul Singer is known for his predatory business practices and support for neoconservative causes.


Keith Kellogg, national security adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, is a passionate supporter of Trump’s foreign policy.


Christians United for Israel (CUFI), the largest “pro-Israel” advocacy group in the United States, is known for its zealous Christian Zionism and its growing influence in the Republican Party.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share