More Evidence That Obama is Changing Mideast policy
The signs all point in one direction. President Obama is breaking with his predecessors' policies on Israel-Palestine.
The latest evidence is his decision to submit legislation that would allow US assistance to the Palestinians even if Fatah and Hamas form a unity government. Under current law, any power sharing agreement would terminate US aid.
This change, if implemented, makes it more likely that a power sharing arrangement will be reached. And that is good news because the two-state solution requires that there be one Palestinian entity, not two. The two-state solution is tricky enough. Three states? Forget about it.
Let's see what Congress does with Obama's request. Will the Democrats follow Obama or back the Netanyahu government which is already lobbying against the Obama language?
Meanwhile, the Times of London expects an Israeli attack on Iran at any time. I don't believe it. Too utterly insane.
Meanwhile, the Times of London expects an Israeli attack on Iran at any time.
The article doesn't say that at all. It says that the armed forces are preparing the ability to strike if they are given the green light. Making those preparations, and publicizing the fact that it is making those preparations, are part of Israel's attempt to send the message to Iran that they will be prepared to strike if they deem it necessary. Israel is also trying to send the message to Washington and other capitals that it is prepared to act alone if other countries don't take care of Iran for them, and it won't be pressured into backing down on Iran.
It was a bad idea for Rahm Emanuel to suggest a linkage between the Palestine issue and the Iran issue - if the news reports were accurate and he did indeed say that. The two issues have very little to do with each other, and US strategic interests are not served by, in effect, suggesting to Israel that the US will take care of Iran as some sort of quid pro quo in exchange for good behavior in the West Bank.
Either the nuclear problem posed by Iran is serious or it isn't. If it is serious, then dealing with it shouldn't be contingent on what Israel does or doesn't do in the West Bank. If it is not serious, then the US shouldn't be suggesting that it might take military action against a non-threat to handle a non-problem in exchange for Israeli cooperation on an entirely different matter.
But the fact that the administration is willing to treat the Iranian nuclear program as just some sort of political football and negotiating chip in its dealings with Israel is in itself enough to suggest that they rate the seriousness of the supposed threat far, far, far below the level assigned to it by Israel.
April 17, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The article doesn't say that at all.
What a surprise! (not.) As usual, I guess the reader is expected not to look at the link and to begin adding spin on spin.
I found the following part interesting, especially that I have highlighted:
April 17, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The above synchs well with what commenter lally posted here--with an excerpt from a Christian Science Monitor piece on the the "Rahm Emmanuel" thread.
April 17, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
LET PEACE REIGN THROUGH THE MIDDLE EAST
It is long overdue that these two neighbors live in brotherly peace, side by side, each, with their own country and national borders. Israel would greatly benefit from this solution due to the extremely vast amounts of resources that have been, and are still, being diverted to sustain a military economy. So much blood has been spilled on both sides, afflicting fathers and mothers all over the land.
In addition, grievances and conflicts would have different, civilized, more constructive and lawful avenues for resolution - cultural exchanges, legal agreements, conferences, meetings,and treaties between the two nations. The potential benefits for new economic productivity, trade, commerce, and technological development cannot be overemphasized. The whole region would achieve a new soberness of mind as if people had just awakened from a most horrific nightmare that was consuming their very souls, zest for living and spiritual tranquility. And we Americans would "take a break" so well deserved for being the mediators of a new beginning, of a new reconciliation. We all pray for and look forward to such a miraculous event.
April 17, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many people remember that the Israelis requested a green light from W to bomb these very same facilities last year and he would not approve. With the need to fly over other countries and through their airspace, it seems unlikely that this will happen. It is a political game. It would also be the most likely beginning of WW III as most middle eastern states would side with Iran and look at it as approval by America (nonaction). I remember being 12 years old and having the driver telling us this is where the Bible says Armageddon will take place. I said, Mom what is Armageddon? Live and learn.
April 17, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Twisting the screwdriver, hammering the nail, and sawing the plank:
Who needs a screwdriver,
a hammer, and a saw?
I do, says the Obamaman;
I need them all.
April 18, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this stance (ready to bomb) is a move in the developing chess game with the Obama administration. The "crazy Netanyahu" gambit, similar to the crazy Nixon gambit in the old days. I hope Obama and Clinton are ready for the very hard ball that is going to be played by the Netanyahu-Lieberman government.
April 18, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there's been this week some sanity from a somewhat unexpected source: Gates says an Israeli attack won't nip the nukes.
April 18, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
But this is not unexpected, not news. We know that was also the case when Bush was still president, that was revealed on Jan. 11 in U.S. Rejected Aid for Israeli Raid on Iranian Nuclear Site: The interviews also indicate that Mr. Bush was convinced by top administration officials, led by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates...
As Ephraim Kam says in the excerpt from the London Times article in my comment above
The American defence establishment is unsure that the operation will be successful. And the results of the operation would only delay Iran's programme by two to four years,...Many of the leaks or statements made by Israeli leaders and military commanders are meant for deterrence and the article notes An Israeli attack on Iran would entail flying over Jordanian and Iraqi airspace, where US forces have a strong presence.
I don't think it really has been the case since Rummy left Sec. Def., it's just that writers like Rosenberg like to rile people up about it so they agitate against AIPAC agitprop. Both types are "believers" and are producing agitprop. The Israelis talk and plan on it as a deterrent, if people want to fall for it, they are more than happy, as that's their intent, that enough continue to believe. (Just like Iranian mullahs like to play the game of "you can never be sure that we're doing it or not.")
The most sinister thing that might be going on right now is an American/Israeli intelligence attempts to affect Iranian elections, not an argument about whether the Israelis can bomb Iran. They're not going to, not without U.S. permission, it's just in their interest to make it seem like they might.
I believe Obama is very strongly sincere about doing everything possible to prevent Iran from getting anywhere near having nukes, and that's not all about Israel, not at all.
Steve Coll makes the big picture case well in this short April 20 New Yorker piece. Obama has long had an interest in working against proliferation, and Iran getting nukes would mean countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt wanting them, too. It all syncs so far, it's really about Iran more than Israel/Palestine, that's where this administration is going.
Palestinians being happy would make a lot of Sunnis and others in the Islamic world happy, which would give you some goodwill in diplomatic efforts, that's all. But that wouldn't solve the problem of Sunni states being afraid of Iran having too much power.
I think people who are looking at it as a "protect Israel thing" are looking at it much narrower than this administration is, And because of that, they will continually be reading the wrong things into that which the administration and Congress does.
April 18, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coll, in my New Yorker link above, refers to and quotes Obama's recent speech in Praque on the callenge of nuclear proliferation.
But the big picture was basically in the administration's first major foreign policy address, by Joe Biden, Feb. 7. Heck, in hindsight, looks to me that Russia is being stressed there because of Iran and Afghanistan. And that Iran and Afghanistan are more important to the administration than Israel and Sunni population solidarity with the Palestinians cause.
The only real key is Iranian dislike of Israel and agitprop against Israel, and the Hezbollah factor. And here's Obama on Iran and Hamas and Hezbollah in his Feb. 9 news conference.
Iran and nukes is an important issue to Obama, not because of Israel, just in itself.
Let me put it this way: I think we are going to be giving not that much more priority to Israel/Palestine than Russia does. The administration cares more about the dangers inherent in Iran's situation. Israel will be involved, but Israel will not dictate. If we do happen to see any negativity towards something Iran does or says from this administration, I think those who think it is being influenced by Israel or "the lobby" will be totally on the wrong track.
April 18, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
aa.
I'm beginning to suspect that your animus toward MJ is distorting your vision.
April 18, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lol, do you expect me to agree with that?
I'm actually mainly posting on this thread because the London Times piece and DanK's response to it was interesting and got me thinking.
But if you want to bring in Rosenberg, anyone whose read his postings here for any length of time has seem him misrepresent the articles he cites extremely often, all the time, and it's been getting worse lately, so that I find it humorous. And I am far from the only one to point it out. Whether it's purposeful disinfo., A.D.D., or just sloppiness, why shouldn't one say so if they see it while finding something of interest on the thread?
It's just like he often misrepresents commmenters he takes a disliking to, calling them neo-cons or Hillary supporters or something that looks totally ridiculous to those of us who have actually read their opinions over a period of time. What good does it do to leave such inaccuracies unchallenged on the net if it is easy to challenge them?
If you want to talk distortion, well, I wasted a lot of time reading a lot of nonsense about Iran by the lobby-paranoia-impaired over the last couple years, and they turned out to be very wrong. There were inumerable posts about about how we, or Israel, were going to bomb Iran next month, next week, etc., with all the "evidence" of the plot laid out in detail and how everyone should freak out about it. And that is not what I read when I went to sources that were not so impaired with lobby paranoia. I believe it was not the situation then, and it's not the situation now. When you start your approach to it within the "it's all about the lobby" frame, you are going further away from, not closer to, being able to see reality.
April 18, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh AA, I thought alot of the Iran stuff was potentially legit. Sy Hersh certainly thought so, among numerous other writers who weren't all lobby/paranoid/impaireds (okay he might be, like him anyway).
I never felt the pitch hit so high as to think it was about to happen, but some people certainly wanted it and I didn't doubt the possibility. For a good year we had 4 to 5 carrier groups there 24/7 and the speed boat thing in the Persian gulf certainly strikes me as awful suspicious.
But you are right once Rummy was out of the picture things likely did calm down. Still, I never thought they would actually go into Iraq without a real exit plan. And I also thought they would plant WMDs (that would have been the clever sinister thing to do). So I gave up trying to guess them and would have believed anything.
You are also Totally right about MJ. Don't trust a word, too bad though he seems to be one of the few who is truely hopeful.
April 18, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I highly respect Sy Hersh's New Yorker reporting to this day. He has significant contacts of great importance in the intel world, and he does his damn best to filter what agenda they might have in what they tell him, and the editors he works with do that together with him as well. But that can't always be done to perfection. My opinion is that you must read what he writes very carefully on the sources, he is trying to put together a puzzle and if you look at that way, you won't be disappointed. He does make it clear if you don't read what he writes without bringing your own preconceptions hoping to have them validified, if you don't skip over his qualifiations.
I read everything he wrote in The New Yorker over the Bush years and I think what he said was also misrepresented by the blogosphere. It was usually the same type of misrepresentation as with this London Times piece. People were skipping over the qualifications and parts they didn't want to see.
On the other hand, in his public appearances, like lectures or on Meet The Press, I know that he himself has admitted that he turned to agitprop, and that he did that because he felt it was a way for him to contribute in the effort to fight the Bush administration. He separates his political activism from his journalism that way: his written pieces for The New Yorker are the ones that try very hard to figure out what actually is going on and anything that is suggested that can't be proved is couched.
The point: I never got from Hersh's articles that we were going to invade Iran, I got that our military had drawin u serious plans to be able to do that in case it was needed. That's actually part of realpolitik, you know, you threaten military action and make sure they believe it. At the time, I think people believe Hersh "proved" it when I read no such thing in what he wrote. Sure, out on the stump, doing a college lecture, Hersh would say "they are torturing," and "they want to invade Iran" because that was his personal political activism. He has been quite honorable in separating the two, but lots of people in the blogosphere aren't the same.
April 19, 2009 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. I'd like to throw out there that where I am coming from in general is that I think over the Bush years the Iranian leaders have shown themselves grand masters of geopolitic, they really are skillful at the game, always the maddening Cheshire Cat thing going on, reflecting the culture that invented chess. All you had to do to get that impression was to read the reports of the IAEA's and European diplomats interaction with them (and set aside all the Bush/Rummy distracting nonsense) and you'd see them wanting to make sure no one could ever figure out if they wanted nukes or not. If the Europeans started to think they didn't have/want, they would make sure their suspicions were aroused, and if then they would reverse course and protest innocence again. It is continual cat and mouse. It may all be strings and mirrors, but you cannot be sure. They do want the respect of 1st nation status, that they are equally capable of handling and having nukes as anyone that has them now, that respect, that's what I think they want.
Of course, the strings and mirrors is something the Soviets did with the west, too, and they may have learned from that. The point I see the Obama team is working from is that they don't want to ratchet up that Iran is our enemy, no way, in that they are opposite from Bush. But I think they are concerned of the possibility to waking up to an announcement one day that Iran has it, not because they fear Iran in a vacuum being able to act responsibly with it so much, but because they fear it will cause all the Sunni states surrounding to want one too. And as that the future regarding religious conflict and war is even harder to foretell than other things, that result, all of them having it, would be very dangerous "end times" stuff. So the general idea looks like getting them the respect they want without letting them have the bomb, so that they feel they don't need it. But we are in a ridiculous situation to even be able to do that: we have our military surrounding them in Afghanistan and Iraq. Forget Israel, it's us that's threatening them, for crying out loud. For all they know, Sarah Palin could be president in 4 years, why should they trust what Obama/Clinton promise?
April 19, 2009 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lally,
I'd actually appreciate it if you shared how an American citizen just having been convicted by Iran of spying despite the pleading of the U.S. secretary of state, fits into your own "vision"? Sincerely, if you have any thoughts or have seen anything interesting on it, it would be great if you put it on that thread.
To go back to silliness about Rosenberg's "vision" distorting mine. Yes, I admit it, I used Rosenberg's last thread to bring up the Saberi story on Rosenberg's, to perhaps pick up some interaction (heaven's knows Rosenberg will never post on it if it doesn't promise to turn out well or doesn't fit the narrative) and I got it, from flavius, and then a couple others.
If I really wanted to be a brat, which I don't, because that would be a waste of my time, I would post more often on his threads with other stuff I read, like this:Egypt arrests 49 ("Hezbollah supporters and sympathizers") In Planned Attacks (April 13) to ruin the narrative constantly being pushed. Stuff like an Arab government mouthpiece saying this just doesn't fit the Rosenberg story,
Egypt's state media spared no vitriol. Sunday's edition of the Al Gomhuria daily dedicated its front page to an angry editorial headlined "The Criminal is Unrepentant," telling Mr. Nasrallah that "the garbage dump of history is full of people like you."
But I don't bother for the most part, I mostly ignore. It's really not the important thing for me, it's simply trying to find people who have some goddamn sense of reality and aren't into spin.
You have suggested in the past that my "big picture" approach is distoring partly because I don't follow the day-to-day details of Israeli politics in their media.
Well, I believe, myopia is more distorting, whether induced by following Israeli politics without coming outside of that box from time to time to look at the big picture, or induced by following "the lobby" politics in the U.S. and presuming that is always the main story driving everything (or for that matter, myopia induced by following the Iraq war in 2004 as if the whole world cares about it as much as you do, or myopia induced by following the Democratic primary as if the whole world cares about it as much as you do.) It is extremely distorting on this topic in particular, to the point of internet debates on I/P being easily parodied on sites like The Onion. Whatever the case, a lot of the discussions here are not taking people anywhere near what the president has to look at, they often appear as funny exercises in never-never land to me, and that's why I find your response funny. If I'm losing it, then it must follow that most of the stuff posted here is way way out in outer space.
April 18, 2009 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.
will you take a rest!
April 20, 2009 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well aa, I didn't think you were "losing it".....but given your response, perhaps I should revisit that assumption.
April 19, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink