Diplomatic maneuvers
The influx of high level US diplomats to Israel in the past few days has produced several headlines. The most significant, by Secty of Defense Gates, was a clarification of Secty of State Clinton's statement last week that seemed to accept a future Iranian nuclear weapon by stating that all US allies would be covered by the US nuclear umbrella. Now Gates has reiterated that the US will not accept an Iranian nuclear weapon and has specified that Obama's invitation to Iran to start a dialog is not open-ended and will expire in "the fall". Furthermore, the US will not engage in meaningless time-wasting, the kind that Iran used to string along the Europeans for the last 5 years. Well, we shall see, but at least this clarification puts Israel and the US more or less back on the same page. Defense Minister Barak for his part stated that all options regarding Iran are on the table, but Israel prefers tough sanctions.
Meanwhile Israel's sending warships thru the Suez Canal to the Persian Gulf has caused a reaction from Tehran, namely that should Israel attack Iran then they will attack all nuclear sites in Israel. Also, Hizbollah issued a warning that an attack on Iran would be considered an attack on them and they will hit Tel Aviv.
By complete contrast, in the Jerusalem Post today there is a feature article written by the Crown Prince of Bahrain, Shaikh Salman Bin Hamad al Khalif, entitled "Arabs need to talk to the Israelis." In this article the Shaikh not only suggests that the Saudi Plan could be modified in negotiations (contrary to the Saudis themselves), but he manifests a pragmatic approach towards peace, emphasizing economic cooperation. Maybe this is a good thing for small Kingdoms in the Gulf, but it does represent a potential schism between the moderate, mostly Sunni, and the extremist, mostly Shia or Shia-supported, Arabs.
In other news, the split between the US and Israel on the freeze of settlement building was papered over by both sides saying how they are good friends and fellow democracies. But, currently Gates is negotiating/ pressuring Netanyahu to come up with an agreed freeze, as the first step in a comprehensive peace agreement. Notably already US allies Britain and France have come out publicly in favor of such a freeze. Since the Saudis refused to cooperate with the US in any form of compromise, then of course the US turns around and pressures Israel, that's the way it always goes. It may be that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia said, "first let the Israelis adopt a freeze on all settlement building, then we'll see". But, what will Israel get from the Arabs should it accede to this pressure, the answer based on previous experience is nothing. However, according to today's paper the US and Israel are waiting for responses from several Arab States to Obama's initiatives.
But, Obama nevertheless is pursuing a comprehensive agreement, something that has been tried before, remember Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy, but with no success. The argument against a comprehensive agreement, including Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians, is that several of them are unable to make agreements at all. Lebanon is stymied by Hizbollah and the PA by Hamas in Gaza. You cannot leave Iran out of the equation, and in my opinion, Iran must be dealt with first, before there is the possibility of any Palestinian or Lebanese agreement. A comprehensive agreement is well nigh impossible when you consider how many players must be in line for it to occur. The alignment of the planets occurs only once in a blue moon. Trust a novice to attempt the impossible. As Kissinger discovered, a step-wise approach, one pair of adversaries at a time, is the only practicable approach.
Meanwhile Israel's sending warships thru the Suez Canal to the Persian Gulf has caused a reaction from Tehran, namely that should Israel attack Iran then they will attack all nuclear sites in Israel. Also, Hizbollah issued a warning that an attack on Iran would be considered an attack on them and they will hit Tel Aviv.
By complete contrast, in the Jerusalem Post today there is a feature article written by the Crown Prince of Bahrain, Shaikh Salman Bin Hamad al Khalif, entitled "Arabs need to talk to the Israelis." In this article the Shaikh not only suggests that the Saudi Plan could be modified in negotiations (contrary to the Saudis themselves), but he manifests a pragmatic approach towards peace, emphasizing economic cooperation. Maybe this is a good thing for small Kingdoms in the Gulf, but it does represent a potential schism between the moderate, mostly Sunni, and the extremist, mostly Shia or Shia-supported, Arabs.
In other news, the split between the US and Israel on the freeze of settlement building was papered over by both sides saying how they are good friends and fellow democracies. But, currently Gates is negotiating/ pressuring Netanyahu to come up with an agreed freeze, as the first step in a comprehensive peace agreement. Notably already US allies Britain and France have come out publicly in favor of such a freeze. Since the Saudis refused to cooperate with the US in any form of compromise, then of course the US turns around and pressures Israel, that's the way it always goes. It may be that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia said, "first let the Israelis adopt a freeze on all settlement building, then we'll see". But, what will Israel get from the Arabs should it accede to this pressure, the answer based on previous experience is nothing. However, according to today's paper the US and Israel are waiting for responses from several Arab States to Obama's initiatives.
But, Obama nevertheless is pursuing a comprehensive agreement, something that has been tried before, remember Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy, but with no success. The argument against a comprehensive agreement, including Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians, is that several of them are unable to make agreements at all. Lebanon is stymied by Hizbollah and the PA by Hamas in Gaza. You cannot leave Iran out of the equation, and in my opinion, Iran must be dealt with first, before there is the possibility of any Palestinian or Lebanese agreement. A comprehensive agreement is well nigh impossible when you consider how many players must be in line for it to occur. The alignment of the planets occurs only once in a blue moon. Trust a novice to attempt the impossible. As Kissinger discovered, a step-wise approach, one pair of adversaries at a time, is the only practicable approach.
posted by Jack Cohen at 4:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home