Ms Clinton's Wild Ride: Iran is Still Very, Very Dangerous

Latest Post: Clinton/Gates to Israel (and Congress) - Back Off on Iran

More evidence, for me, that the mission of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (pictured) is more than a separation of Iran from the Palestine and Lebanon issues (a running debate amongst us and our readers, and one we'll return to later today). This is shaping up to be a major US diplomatic offensive to "put Iran in a box", whether in advance of another attempt at diplomacy from a position of strength or further pressure on Tehran.

On Wednesday, Clinton used a stopover at the European Union in Brussels to warn of Iran's threat to the Middle East via local groups: ""It is clear Iran intends to interfere in the internal affairs of all these people and try to continue their efforts to fund terrorism -- whether it is Hezbollah or Hamas or other proxies."
She returned to the idea of missile defense devoted primarily, if not solely, to facing down Iran: ""We've made the point to Russia and will again, and I think they may be beginning to really believe it. We have real potential threats, and obviously Iran is the name we put to them as a kind of stand-in for the range of threats we foresee."

Clinton's latest verbal barrage was in part an effort to keep Iran at a distance from US policy on Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world: ""There is a great deal of concern about Iran from the entire region. I heard it over and over and over again in Sharm el Sheikh, in Israel, in Ramallah." En route to Brussels, she reiterated to reporters on her plane that she heard "over and over and over again" from Arab representatives their deep-seated worries about Iranian threats.

At the same time there was clearly a general perspective to curb Iranian power beyond the region, ""We think Iran poses a threat to Europe and Russia. Well, how do we cooperate on that? ... I think this is a very rich area for exploration, and that's what we're going to do."

Ms Clinton's Wild Ride: A US "Grand Strategy" on Israel-Palestine-Iran?

Related Post: Iran, Missile Defense, and a Clinton Power Play?
Related Post: Ms Clinton’s Wild Ride: Is Dennis Ross in the Saddle on Iran?


"What is the broader strategy for the Obama Administration if it is re-engaging with the Israel-Palestinian process and the region beyond? There are three issues to consider: 1. The pursuit of a "two-state" Israel-Palestine settlement; 2. The contest between Hamas and Fatah for political leadership in Gaza and the West Bank; 3. The US relationship with Iran."

The easy part first: the significant development at the Gaza Donors Conference this week was not the declaration of $5.2 billion in aid for the area. It might have been a feel-good measure and good PR for some of the countries putting up their symbolic numbers, but it means nothing unless 1) Israel relents on its choke-hold on any aid to Gaza; 2) Hamas agrees to let the Palestinian Authority carry the aid and the credit. The first condition is doubtful with the current interregnum in the Israeli Government and the prospect of a Netanyahu Administration; the second is a non-starter.

Nope, if you wanted a meaningful headline, it's this: "US Promises $300 Million to Gaza; $600 Million to Palestinian Authority and West Bank". That's right: at a conference which was supposedly to arrange relief for Gazans suffering from long-term deprivation and the short-term assault by Israeli forces, two-thirds of the American commitment went elsewhere.

Which, of course, is no accident: Washington's clear priority is to prop up the PA and Fatah Party of Mahmoud Abbas as the proper faction to lead the Palestinian cause. But there's more....

Yesterday's New York Times, that US newspaper of record, did not lead with the aid announcement. Instead, it chose another pronouncement by the Secretary of State, this one made "privately" to an Arab foreign minister: "Clinton Pessimistic on Iran Outreach". So, at a conference supposedly devoted to the immediate problems of Gaza, the American delegation --- which immediately fed Clinton's Iran statement to the press --- was not solely concentrated on Israel and Palestine but looking hundreds of miles away to Tehran.

This all begs the question: what is the broader strategy for the Obama Administration if it is re-engaging with the Israel-Palestinian process and the region beyond? There are three issues to consider:

1. The pursuit of a "two-state" Israel-Palestine settlement;
2. The contest between Hamas and Fatah for political leadership in Gaza and the West Bank;
3. The US relationship with Iran.

Let's assume that the first issue is the long-term priority for the Obama Administration. That is the declared purpose of the President's designation of an envoy, George Mitchell, and it was restated in Clinton's speech at the Donors Conference and after her meetings with Israeli leaders yesterday.

That doesn't mean, however, that this is the immediate objective of US officials. Instead, their focus is on getting the right answer on Issue 2 --- that "proper" Palestinian leadership --- before proceeding with the negotiations for the two-state settlement.

And this is where Washington lowered the boom this week. It's not just a question of repeating the preconditions for Hamas to be "acceptable" in the political process: renunciation of violence, recognition of Israel, and adherence to 2005 agreements on border crossings. The US just handed out a $200 million lifeline to the Palestinian Authority so it can pay its employees and promised another $400 for unspecified "projects", but presumably ones where Abbas and Fatah will take credit. And, beyond that, there's the small matter of Washington funding the PA's security forces, as a New York Times puff piece illustrated this week:

One year ago, this 18-acre campus built with $10 million of American taxpayer money was another piece of Jordan Valley desert, and Palestinian guardsmen slept on flea-bitten mattresses and took meals on their laps. Along with a 35-acre, $11 million operations camp a few miles away, also American-financed, it is a real step forward in an otherwise moribund process of Palestinian state-building.

“These guys now feel like they’re on a winning team, that they are building a Palestinian state,” said Lt. Gen. Keith W. Dayton, the American who has been overseeing the training of Palestinian forces, as he watched exercises on Thursday. “And I wouldn’t stay if I didn’t think they were going to do it. I have complete confidence in the Palestinian leadership, and I’m convinced the new administration is serious about this.”

That's the nice spin on the US effort. The not-so-nice possibilities are that these security forces may be more concerned about stopping political dissent in the West Bank than they are about stopping attacks on Israel. And, oh yes, those forces could always be used --- as occurred in 2007 --- in a de facto civil war with Hamas.

This US support of the Palestinian Authority, and its corresponding effort to isolate and undermine Hamas, is far from new. Indeed, it was part of the December war in Gaza. However, when the effort to re-install the PA failed, there was a window of possibility --- through private talks or communications via a third party --- for Washington to "engage" Hamas with a view to bringing it into the peace process.

Clinton and the US money this week signalled that this is no longer on the table. It may be that the possibility never existed. Or it may be that the Obama Administration has calculated that, with visions of Benjamin Netanyahu, promotion of the PA is the only way to get the next Israeli Prime Minister to accept any two-state possibility.

That, however, is only the first part of the story. The second is the apparent decision of Washington to bring the Iran variable back into the Israel-Palestine calculation. Clinton's statement of her pessimism on engagement with Tehran was accompanied by the leak to the New York Times of the US offer to Russia to trade missile defence for Moscow's abandonment of the Iranian nuclear programme.

So, only six weeks after the Obama Inaugural prospect of engagement with an unclenched fist and four after his Vice-President's speech at Munich further pointed to a possible dialogue (as well as meetings behind the scenes), US officials have chosen to highlight their get-tough stance.

One explanation for this shift is the long-awaited entry of Dennis Ross, who has long advocated "Diplomacy Then Pressure", into the State Department. Another is that the Obama Administration is in a muddle, with different folks putting out different positions on the Iran question.

However, the conjunction of the setting of the Donors Conference and Clinton's declaration raises a grander possibility: the US relationship with Tehran is now a bargaining chip in the US manoeuvres on Israel-Palestine. So does Clinton's statement yesterday after talking to the Israelis that Hamas is "a client of Iran".

Put bluntly, the US may anticipate that Netanyahu will be insisting on a withdrawal from engagement with Iran if there is to be an engagement with the Palestinian Authority and the two-state process; indeed, he may have already make that clear to the Americans.

The folly of the Obama Administration sacrificing any thought of an opening with Iran is clear. Even if Israel-Palestine is a "core" issue, it's not the only one in town. Indeed, you could argue that Afghanistan has also become a "core" issue for the future of US foreign policy and Iran, which is as focused on Central Asia as the Middle East, is a key player which could assist the American efforts. By throwing up a wall to Tehran, the US Government protects its position in one vital area only to give it away on another.

Unfortunately, that is an easy sacrifice to make, at least with respect to the US relationship with Israel and American domestic politics. And the long-term costs remain, well, long-term.

So the Obama team will press on, possibly oblivious to other consequences of their shift. Consider, for example, another piece of the puzzle: the US relationship with Syria. In the vision of a two-state Israel-Palestine process in which the Palestinian Authority would be promoted, Damascus can and should be brought in from the cold. No coincidence, then, that Clinton announced that two US envoys, Jeffrey Feltman and Daniel Shapiro, would visit Syria this week --- the highest-level US contacts with Damascus since January 2005.

Of course, that US approach will be seeking a Syrian detachment from Iran and a commitment to let Hamas dangle in the wind. So what happens if the Syrians refuse or simply stall on giving an answer to Washington? Does Washington shake a fist, possibly threatening the consequences of the tribunal on the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri? Or does it accept that other countries may not follow the American script?

I fear we are on the verge of witnessing yet another huge strategic choice --- and error --- to accompany the choice/error that has been in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Latest on Israel-Palestine (4 March): US Keeps Hamas on Outside

Related Post: Ms Clinton’s Wild Ride - A US “Grand Strategy” on Israel-Palestine-Iran?



Evening Update (7 p.m.): US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (pictured), at a news conference after her meeting with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, has described Israeli plans to demolish dozens of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem as "unhelpful".

Clinton sent out another unsubtle signal regarding the West Bank and Gaza: "The US supports the Palestinian Authority as the only legitimate government of the Palestinian people."

Afternoon Update (11:30 a.m.): US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has met the Palestinian Authority's Salam Fayyad, who pressed for a halt to extension of Israeli settlements and an opening of Gazan border crossings.

Morning Update (6:20 a.m. GMT): Speaking after her meetings with high-ranking Israeli officials on Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton  restated the long-standing preconditions on any engagement with Hamas in the Israel-Palestine process: recognition of Israel, renunciation of violence, and adherence to agreements from 2005 on issues such as border crossings. Clinton said, referring to the points set out by the Quartet of the US-European Union-United Nations-Russia, "In the absence of Hamas agreeing to the principles that have been adopted by such a broad range of international actors, I don't see that we or they -- or anyone -- could deal with Hamas."

Clinton went further, however, in his denunciation of Hamas, indicating a link of US policy on Israel-Palestine to a shift in Washington's approach to Tehran. Asked if Hamas had to make a public statement, rather than a private commitment, she answered, "Well, the PLO did that, and I think no less can be expected of Hamas which is, obviously, not only a terrorist group but is increasingly a client of Iran."

The Latest from Israel-Gaza-Palestine (2 March): The Donors' Conference

Update (1:50 p.m.): Hamas has set out a defiant position in the face of the donors' conference support for aid via the Palestinian Authority and for direct assistance to the PA. Spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said, "To bypass the legitimate Palestinian authorities in the Gaza Strip is a move in the wrong direction and it deliberately undermines the reconstruction."

Hillary Clinton's statement to the conference offered little more than general platitudes: "We cannot afford more setbacks or delays -- or regrets about what might have been, had different decisions been made....It is time to look ahead."

Update (9:25 a.m. GMT): Well, here's a start on our questions below about the politics of this supposed assistance: "U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will pledge $900 million for the Palestinians at a donors' conference in Egypt, but only a third of that is earmarked for Gaza, a U.S. official said on Sunday....About $200 million of the U.S. pledge would help cover budget shortfalls of the Western-backed Palestinian Authority (PA) and the remainder was for economic reforms, security and private sector projects run by the PA."

The headline event today will be the meeting in Cairo of representatives from "Western" countries and the Arab world, pledging money to the reconstruction of Gaza.

This is a non-story in some respects. We already know the amounts that individual countries will put forward, for example, $900 million from the US, and we know the formula will be that aid goes through the UN and the Palestinian Authority, with Hamas being ostracised. Shrewder readers will also know that the impact of the aid will be symbolic unless 1) there is a workable arrangement on the ground for the PA to be involved in delivery of assistance and, more importantly, 2) Israel allows the aid through the border crossings.

No, this is primarily a political event. So watch for the extent to which the Palestinian Authority is exalted by the delegations, indicating how much support there really is for an attempt to put Fatah at the head of Gazan politics, and the extent to which Hamas is condemned. That should give an indication as to whether there is a hope, beyond this conference, of an engagement with all parties on the Israel-Palestine issue.

Without that acceptance, which has to include rather than exclude Hamas, today's event will be posture rather than a practical way forward (or even a maintenance of a decent status quo) in Gaza.

The Latest on Israel-Palestine: Lull Before the Diplomatic Flurry? (1 March)

Update: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has warned of "a sharp, painful, and strong respone" if the firing of rockets from Gaza into southern Israel does not stop. Nine rockets were launched this weekend.

On the eve of the Gaza donors' conference, which is more of a political dance than a significant effort to rebuild the area, and the tour of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (pictured) of the Middle East, there are a lot of meetings for show but no substance...yet.

After the Cairo discussions on Palestinian "reconciliation", including Hamas and Fatah delegations, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas has tried to re-seize the initiative with a declaration that all aid for Gaza must go through his organisation. It is a call that may be supported by the donors' conference --- European Union representative Javier Solana immediately pledged allegiance after seeing Abbas on Saturday, "I would like to insist in agreement with the president that the mechanism used to deploy the money is the one that represents the Palestinian Authority."

In Palestine, however, Abbas' declaration may have little significance unless the Palestinian Authority can shore up its ebbing support in Gaza and, indeed, the West Bank. And that in turn probably rests upon some significant Israeli concession to allow goods and materials into the Strip.

Abbas supported his power play with a declaration that any Palestinian unity government must recognise Israel. Hamas in turn refused any recognition in advance of negotiations with Tel Aviv on other issues. "We reject any pre-conditions in the formation of the unity government. Hamas will never accept a unity government that recognizes Israel," said its spokesman Ayman Taha.

Abbas's statements follow his meeting on Friday with US envoy George Mitchell. The American gave away little on Washington's position in advance of Hillary Clinton's visit.

More intriguingly, Ha'aretz has reported US military assurances to Israel in advance of any negotiations. The head of US European Command, General John Craddock, met Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Israeli military commanders to discuss how to improve Israel's missile interception capabilities, not primarily against Hamas but against Iran.