Obama's Israel dilemma
Courtesy:- Majid Mahmood
The public diplomacy between United States and Israel has intensified in recent days regarding the possible military action against Iran to ‘end’ the alleged military dimension of its nuclear program. Senior officials from United States and Israel are visibly at odds regarding the nature of Iran’s nuclear program and mechanisms to manage the issue. The persistence of serious differences between Jerusalem and Washington at the influential US- Israel summit in Washington on Monday reflects a far deeper dilemma and complexity of bilateral relationship between two allies.
The fundamental problem between Israel and United States is that of priorities and great power politics. For United States, a war with Iran means four inevitable consequences. One, this will destabilize the entire Middle East and connected regions such as South Asia and Afghanistan which means inextension, US strategic interests in these regions. This is not to suggest that US presence in these regions is a stabilizing factor, but the point here is that the consequences of US led war with Iran are such that it does not have the capability to manage them. Second is the American policy in the Islamic world. United States is supervising carefully knitted regional transitions in Iraq and Afghanistan involving primarily Iran and Pakistan amongst other regional players. The fundamental objective of US is to extricate itself, rather than deeper engagement, from the Islamic theater and lower the strain on its foreign policy so that it can focus on other emerging challengers such as China and Russia. A war in the region could effectively prevent US drive towards Asia – Pacific region. Third, a potential crisis in the Persian Gulf will not only disrupt world’s 35 percent crude oil traffic but will raise the oil prices an estimated $150 to $200 per barrels. Given the fragile condition of global economy in the midst of financial crisis, war with Iran cannot be sold to international opinion.
Fourth is a domestic factor. 2012 is an election year in United States and the focus of American establishment is on daunting domestic challenges, first amongst them is revival of US economy. So United States cannot afford to have an international crisis in the challenging times of its history. These are the fundamental reasons for the existence of impasse between United States and Israel regarding the Iranian nuclear program. The recently released influential US national intelligence estimate differed from the assessments of European, Israel and IAEA regarding the pace of Iranian nuclear program and its alleged military dimension which confirmed its 2007 assessment that Iran has stop working on nuclear weapons program in 2003. Additionally, United States have categorically reiterated its stance on sanctions regime over Iran that these are the best way to slow the Iranian nuclear program and force Iranian regime to come to negotiating terms with the West. Sanctions adopted by Obama administration over Iran’s oil exports although carry loopholes but were by far the most significant sanctions ever applied. The reason was to convince and signal Israel and Europe that sanctions are the only way forward on Iran’s nuclear program.
On a parallel process, however, US is also pressurizing Iran through various channels to lower its aggressive tone so that it is easy for US to manage Israeli leadership. The recent signaling by US president Obama that “he did not have a policy of containment but a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon” is consistent with this process. Moreover, the visit of IAEA’s inspectors to Iran in recent days also serves as a ventilation fan for US and Iran against the pressure mounted by Europe and Israel. These moves and overt signaling by United States also highlights growing concern within US administration that Israel, with the political support of powerful European capitals, is seriously considering an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities without American consent. British Daily Telegraph quoted US defense secretary Leon Panetta on February 2012 as
“Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June - before Iran enters what Israelis described as a ‘zone of immunity’ to commence building a nuclear bomb” With the failure of US – Israel summit from an Israeli perspective, there is an increased uncertainty over the course of events related to Israel and Iran and the broader Middle East region. United States will maintain its current posture towards Iran and tighten the sanction regime to lessen the probability of unilateral Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Moreover, it is highly likely that Iran offers more flexibility on its nuclear program e.g. allowing visits to IAEA’s inspectors to “suspicious” nuclear sites. At the same time, Obama administration does not want to lose the Jewish vote bank in the US presidential elections this year. This dilemma will continue to be a hall mark of bilateral relationship between US and Israel.
The public diplomacy between United States and Israel has intensified in recent days regarding the possible military action against Iran to ‘end’ the alleged military dimension of its nuclear program. Senior officials from United States and Israel are visibly at odds regarding the nature of Iran’s nuclear program and mechanisms to manage the issue. The persistence of serious differences between Jerusalem and Washington at the influential US- Israel summit in Washington on Monday reflects a far deeper dilemma and complexity of bilateral relationship between two allies.
The fundamental problem between Israel and United States is that of priorities and great power politics. For United States, a war with Iran means four inevitable consequences. One, this will destabilize the entire Middle East and connected regions such as South Asia and Afghanistan which means inextension, US strategic interests in these regions. This is not to suggest that US presence in these regions is a stabilizing factor, but the point here is that the consequences of US led war with Iran are such that it does not have the capability to manage them. Second is the American policy in the Islamic world. United States is supervising carefully knitted regional transitions in Iraq and Afghanistan involving primarily Iran and Pakistan amongst other regional players. The fundamental objective of US is to extricate itself, rather than deeper engagement, from the Islamic theater and lower the strain on its foreign policy so that it can focus on other emerging challengers such as China and Russia. A war in the region could effectively prevent US drive towards Asia – Pacific region. Third, a potential crisis in the Persian Gulf will not only disrupt world’s 35 percent crude oil traffic but will raise the oil prices an estimated $150 to $200 per barrels. Given the fragile condition of global economy in the midst of financial crisis, war with Iran cannot be sold to international opinion.
Fourth is a domestic factor. 2012 is an election year in United States and the focus of American establishment is on daunting domestic challenges, first amongst them is revival of US economy. So United States cannot afford to have an international crisis in the challenging times of its history. These are the fundamental reasons for the existence of impasse between United States and Israel regarding the Iranian nuclear program. The recently released influential US national intelligence estimate differed from the assessments of European, Israel and IAEA regarding the pace of Iranian nuclear program and its alleged military dimension which confirmed its 2007 assessment that Iran has stop working on nuclear weapons program in 2003. Additionally, United States have categorically reiterated its stance on sanctions regime over Iran that these are the best way to slow the Iranian nuclear program and force Iranian regime to come to negotiating terms with the West. Sanctions adopted by Obama administration over Iran’s oil exports although carry loopholes but were by far the most significant sanctions ever applied. The reason was to convince and signal Israel and Europe that sanctions are the only way forward on Iran’s nuclear program.
On a parallel process, however, US is also pressurizing Iran through various channels to lower its aggressive tone so that it is easy for US to manage Israeli leadership. The recent signaling by US president Obama that “he did not have a policy of containment but a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon” is consistent with this process. Moreover, the visit of IAEA’s inspectors to Iran in recent days also serves as a ventilation fan for US and Iran against the pressure mounted by Europe and Israel. These moves and overt signaling by United States also highlights growing concern within US administration that Israel, with the political support of powerful European capitals, is seriously considering an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities without American consent. British Daily Telegraph quoted US defense secretary Leon Panetta on February 2012 as
“Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June - before Iran enters what Israelis described as a ‘zone of immunity’ to commence building a nuclear bomb” With the failure of US – Israel summit from an Israeli perspective, there is an increased uncertainty over the course of events related to Israel and Iran and the broader Middle East region. United States will maintain its current posture towards Iran and tighten the sanction regime to lessen the probability of unilateral Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Moreover, it is highly likely that Iran offers more flexibility on its nuclear program e.g. allowing visits to IAEA’s inspectors to “suspicious” nuclear sites. At the same time, Obama administration does not want to lose the Jewish vote bank in the US presidential elections this year. This dilemma will continue to be a hall mark of bilateral relationship between US and Israel.
Comments
Post a Comment