The Call to Arms or is it a shove?
Times reporter Ethan Bronner lays out PM Netanyahu’s campaign to make the United States the guarantor of war against Iran. Netanyahu will meet with Obama on Monday and speak at the AIPAC Conference on Tuesday.
The set-up looks like a pincer movement. Obama agrees to Netanyahu’s terms or Obama will be attacked by the prime minister the next day. The terms? Iron-clad guarantees that if Israel refrains from bombing Iran’s nuclear sites in the near term, the U.S. will do it later. AIPAC members will be lobbying Congress in the following days.
Currently at the top of the Times on line and on page four of the print edition.
Someone said to me this morning that what Obama should say to Netanyahu is: “we won’t outsource the U.S. military to anyone.” Ditto: foreign policy.
Preface: I have no idea what will happen in Washington over the next few days.
I’ll just observe that President Obama tends to have a pretty good track record when it comes to not getting fooled again. As many have observed, and as he himself has said, he’s a pretty good political counterpuncher.
Given that Netanyahu’s already “punched” him (e.g., building in the settlements), it’ll be interesting to see how Obama reacts to Netanyahu’s moves this time.
Here’s a long, harsh look at Obama’s engagement (or lack thereof) with Iran: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/obama-iran-war_b_1250668.html
Thanks for the link…sobering, but dependent on a psychological portrait of Obama that sounds highly anecdotal. How does Bromwich really know?
Bromwich has written quite frequently on Obama, and all of his pieces end up being almost novelistic in nature–he offers a reading of policy that depends upon a reading of personality. Some pieces are more convincing than others, but I find them all incredibly interesting.
Interesting, true. True? I am going to hope they’re more novel than political analysis.
This morning’s column by Pat Buchanan is on this issue and on target: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2012/03/01/will-bibi-break-obama/
Sure enough. Thanks for the link.
I’d not trust the Times not to be pushing their point of view in their news articles. Read elsewhere, also – including in places like Commentary.
Anthony, thanks for
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/obama-iran-war_b_1250668.html
Interesting to try to follow all that. Kind of amazing that people can think in such a convoluted, tortured manner. Clearly, these things are nowhere near as simple as the media make out. Probably impossible for anyone outside the inner circles to understand – anyone including the writer of that piece. The human mind is a devious and impenetrable little machine. Amazing it’s let us survive as long as we have.
What do you all make of President Obama’s interview in “The Atlantic,” where he says:
“I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don’t bluff. I also don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say. Let me describe very specifically why this is important to us.
In addition to the profound threat that it poses to Israel, one of our strongest allies in the world; in addition to the outrageous language that has been directed toward Israel by the leaders of the Iranian government — if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, this would run completely contrary to my policies of nonproliferation. The risks of an Iranian nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorist organizations are profound. It is almost certain that other players in the region would feel it necessary to get their own nuclear weapons. So now you have the prospect of a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world, one that is rife with unstable governments and sectarian tensions. And it would also provide Iran the additional capability to sponsor and protect its proxies in carrying out terrorist attacks, because they are less fearful of retaliation.”
Here: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/
Looks to me like Obama is going to be remembered by the historians because of his cool foreign policy in a very hot world.
Thanks for the link Bob. I read the Goldberg interview as a species of diplospeak. And a reader could conclude in many directions about Obama’s views, and U.S. policy. He is strong on the idea of a permanent solution, which he seems to say is through Iran concluding on its own that nuclear weapons are not in its national interest (and he cites Libya and South Africa as countries that voluntarily gave them up.) He argues against containment should Iran develop a nuclear bomb, i.e., this is not the Cold War redux because of the likelihood that other nations in the region will develop their own against Iran. He also believes that Iran may turn such a weapon over to terrorists. He also says that of course Israel must decide for itself.
The hypotheticals run long and deep. I’d say Obama is really trying to keep all the options on the table.
Pat Lang has a far less benign view of Obama’s words than I do, or perhaps more realistic view.
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2012/03/obama-playing-nice-with-israel.html
Another critical view of the interview; this one by Steve Clemons:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2012/03/note_to_obama_p/
Peggy,
I don’t know Steve Clemons, but I was impressed by his piece. A sample:
“Obama needs to call former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft and have a long chat. President Obama, Tom Donilon, Denis McDonough and other members of the NSC team often reference Scowcroft as one of their north stars on strategic policy — but word is that the President has rarely connected with the sage strategist. And then the President should check in with Zbigniew Brzezinski who could help the President understand the chess board in front of him a bit better.
Both would tell him that it is a mistake for a US President to constrain himself to two choices — and he should keep his powder entirely dry. He should not be telegraphing key red lines to Netanyahu who has been one of his global adversaries and antagonists — who has been the key reason why so many Israelis and members of the American Jewish community have doubts about Obama’s seriousness and resolve about Israel’s core security.
Netanyahu has done more to create global doubts about Obama’s toughness as the result of the Obama-Netanyahu skirmish over the further expansion of Israeli settlements during the fragile, early efforts to move Israel-Palestine peace talks forward. Netanyahu became the Krushchev to Obama’s Kennedy — and Obama, to this day, is struggling to look strong when he’s in the same room or engaged with Israel’s pugnacious prime minister.”