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

(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

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

John Hannah, Dick Cheney’s national security adviser, is now a leading advocate for regime change in both Iran and Syria based at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Dennis Ross, a U.S. diplomat who served in the Obama administration, is a fellow at the “pro-Israel” Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Sheldon Adelson is a wealthy casino magnate known for his large, influential political contributions, his efforts to impact U.S. foreign policy discourse particularly among Republicans, and his ownership and ideological direction of media outlets.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.

Print Friendly

President Trump and his advisers ought to ask themselves whether it is in the U.S. interest to run the risk of Iranian withdrawal from the nuclear agreement. Seen from the other side of the Atlantic, running that risk looks dumb.