Israel Matzav

Iran: Containment is off the table

Ehud Yaari, who is a political commentator for Israel's Channel Two, claims to have it on good source that 'containing' a nuclear Iran is off the table as an option in Washington.

There has also been a change of heart in Washington concerning Iran. I have solid information indicating that the top echelons of the administration -- National Security Council, Pentagon, State Department -- have reached the conclusion that the US cannot adopt the option of containing a nuclear Iran.

The option of accepting a nuclear Iran, unwillingly of course, and then trying to contain it, was advocated by many important players on the American foreign policy scene. This option is now apparently off the table.

There is a change of policy not only in terms of sanctions, both at the UN Security Council and those unilateral sanctions now imposed by both the US, the EU and others; but also an understanding by the administration that in no way can Iran be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon.

How do we know this? Among other things, because this is what the Americans have been telling Arab leaders over recent weeks.

And why have they changed their minds? Because of what the leaders of the Gulf states, including the king of Saudi Arabia, have been saying to Obama for some time now; "We cannot live with a nuclear Iran."

This is something dramatic which also provides a basis for a new understanding with Israel. I make a caveat here -- the fact that the Americans have reached a conclusion that they will not allow Iran to go nuclear does not mean Mr Obama has to take a decision in half a year, a year, or even two.

Haaretz's Aluf Benn agrees:

U.S. priorities have changed: At the top are the intensifying problem of Iran and concerns about the change of leadership in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Under such circumstances, Israel is perceived as a "vital ally," in the words of U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro, and not an obstacle to warmer ties between the United States and the Muslim world, as was the view at the start of Obama's tenure.

...

When Obama came into office he assessed that the United States had been weakened in the Middle East and hoped to reach an agreement on sharing influence with the regional power, Iran. So he cooled toward Israel and pulled out of the closet the well-worn club called settlements. But that didn't work. The Iranians waved off Obama's goodwill gesture, and the Arab states ignored the Palestinian issue and made it clear that blocking Iran was more important. As the United Arab Emirates ambassador to Washington said at a conference last week: "A military attack on Iran by whomever would be a disaster, but Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a bigger disaster."

This is the reason for the turnabout in Obama's approach. Instead of "beat on Israel and gain the applause of the Muslims," the stance on Iran is toughening. Sanctions on Tehran have become tougher, and the rhetoric has become more blunt. Israel has moved from being a burden to a welcome partner, perhaps because there is no choice in view of the expected instability in Cairo and Riyadh with the changes at the top.

Cooperation with the Israel Defense Forces has become closer and the Americans have opted to emphasize it, unlike their tendency in the past of playing it down. Israel has become a hit in Washington to the point where Shapiro, who praised the defense relationship, went as far as to mention two presidents, John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams, for supporting a Jewish homeland decades before Herzl. Zionism was born at the White House, and we had no idea.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has scored a diplomatic achievement. During his first meeting with Obama he tried to convince him that the Iranian threat was paramount, and Obama demanded that he not build in East Jerusalem. Now the president declares that Iran's nuclear program "has been my number one foreign policy priority over the course of the last 18 months," and made no mention of the settlements as he sat next to Netanyahu.

But Benn claims that Netanyahu has given a quid pro quo:

This did not happen for nothing: Netanyahu promised in return that within a year he will have a permanent settlement, and is signaling that the weight of the blow on Iran will be reflected in the extent of the concessions Israel makes. And if this belated love also helps Obama and his party in the upcoming congressional elections, the deal will be worthwhile in his view.

I still don't see Obama going to war against Iran, notwithstanding the post I did earlier this week that claimed he will do just that. But maybe at least he won't use the waivers he insisted on having in the US sanctions legislation.

I don't agree with Benn. I don't believe that other administrations have been quite as cold and calculating with Israel as Obama has been (Benn implies that it's standard behavior for the US vis a vis Israel). I don't believe that all previous presidents have had a visceral hostility to Israel as Obama has (and Carter and Bush I and Eisenhower had).

And I don't believe Netanyahu made any such promise. Or if he made it, he is hoping that it will be long forgotten when Iran is taken care of.

There may well be a new US President and maybe even a new Israeli Prime Minister by then.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:17 PM