Engagement with Iran (Postscript): Did US Tell Israeli General to Take a Hike?

Related Post: Engagement with Iran - A Hopeful US Approach
Related Post: Engagement - And There's Hope on the Iranian Side As Well....

A story from Israel's YNet News on Monday raises the prospect of a Washington rebuff to Israel on how to approach Iran.

The article begins with a statement of the Israeli hopes for a hard line towards Tehran: "IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Gabi Ashkenazi (pictured), who is on an official visit to the United States, told his American colleagues Monday that the Iranian threat could still be handled via sanctions, but stressed that an Israeli military strike was a "serious" option."

It soon becomes clear, however, that Ashkenazi was told to put his airplanes away by US National Security Advisor James Jones, Dennis Ross, the State Department special advisor on Iran, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "[Ashkenazi] did note that economic sanctions on Iran remain the preferable option at this time."

Even more interesting is this note, which I don't think was picked up in the American press: "Later Monday evening, Ashkenazi decided to cut his visit to the US short, in order to attend the government's meeting Tuesday on the prisoner exchange deal meant to secure the release of kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit."

Yeah, right. Ashkenazi is far from a central figure in the political talks with Hamas on Shalit. What is more likely is that, having originally scheduled a five-day stay in the US, the General saw that Tel Aviv's agenda was going nowhere. That interpretation is given even more substance by this denial, which still raises a smile:

IDF Spokesman Brigadier-General Avi Benayahu said that "the decision stemmed from his desire to attend meetings regarding Shalit's retrieval, but it is not to be taken as a reflection of any possible outcome of the negotiations."

Washington's rejection of Ashkenazi's approach is solely on the military side of the Iran question. What remains to be seen is whether, after Hillary Clinton and Dennis Ross floated the idea of a harder diplomatic line with Iran during the Clinton wide ride in the Middle East earlier this month, others in the Administration --- possibly eclipsing Clinton and Ross --- are also going to rebuff Tel Aviv's insistence on tougher economic sanctions.

That Obama "Review/Muddle" on Iran

Related Post: Target Iran? This Week’s US-Israeli Talks

Moments ago, in a post on the US-Israeli talks this week on Iran, we suggested that "review" and "muddle" might mean the same thing in the current policy process of the Obama Adminstration.

The BBC lends weight to this possibility, ironically, in a story headlined, "US policy towards Iran shaping up". The story begins with the revelation, "The Obama administration is finalising its policy for engaging Iran. The approach is likely to involve a combination of small steps to initiate contact between the two countries and may include an overture in the form of a letter to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, according to Western diplomats and senior US officials."

Read further, however, and this "engagement" is by no means certain. The first difficulty comes in the timing of the initiative:

A senior Western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, told reporters that he expected the letter to be sent to Mr Khamenei before the Iranian elections this summer, although Washington's allies would prefer this step to be taken after the vote, to avoid influencing the election.

More importantly, it is unclear what place a letter --- if it is being considered --- would have in an overall US approach to Tehran and even who is making that determination. The BBC story says, "US officials insist that no final decisions have been made and no announcements are expected for at least another 10 days while Dennis Ross - the top official in charge of reviewing US policy towards Iran - conducts an assessment."
Ross, however, is only one cook stirring the broth. Any assessment has to make its way to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Pentagon, the National Security Council, and of course the White House.

So there may be the drama of a proposed letter but there is still no clarity on what exactly is happening between Washington and the fist, clenched or unclenched, of Tehran.

Target Iran? This Week's US-Israeli Talks

Related Post: That Obama “Review/Muddle” on Iran

The visit to the US by Israel's top military commander, Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi (pictured), which we noted a few days ago, has received no attention in the mainstream press. There are a couple of teasing indications on the Internet, however, of where the talks may be going.

Iran's Press TV, in the midst of an over-wrought (and misleading) story that "U.S., Israel on the same page on Iran timeline", offers this revelation:

Within days of Mullen's pronouncement of close Israel-U.S. cooperation, his Israeli counterpart, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, was putting it to the test in Washington meetings with Gen. James Jones, President Obama's national security adviser, top Pentagon brass and Dennis Ross, who shapes Iran policy at the State Department.

Subtle differences in the Hebrew and English official accounts of Ashkenazi's meetings were telling.

"Throughout the day, the Chief of Staff met with the National Security Adviser, Gen. James Jones, with whom he discussed professional matters such as Iran's nuclear plans, the security situation along Israel's northern border, weapons smuggling, as well as the situation in the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza Strip after operation 'Cast Lead,' " said the statement put out Monday by Israel for the foreign media.

The Hebrew statement, put out by Israel for domestic consumption, said Iran was the "foremost" issue that Ashkenazi discussed.

I suspect the differences in the two statements are not just presentation. This suggests that US officials are continuing to emphasize that Iran has to be approached as part of a regional evaluation which considers the next steps on the Israel-Palestine situation. So, while Tel Aviv might be pressing for an Iran-first approach --- strengthened sanctions and possibly military action --- Washington will not be "on the same page".

Other reports have suggested that Ashkenazi's failure to see US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is a further snub to Israel. I'm doubtful about this, as James Jones, heading the National Security Council, would be setting out the US inter-departmental view, and Ashkenazi is also seeing the key State Department official, Dennis Ross.

Instead this report, again from Press TV, is telling if true:

Ashkenazi reportedly outlined for Ross contingencies under which Israel could attack Iran, reiterating it was not on the table for now. Coincidentally, a paper from the [US] Center for Strategic and International Studies published this week said that such an attack was doable, if difficult, both through an air attack and by long-range missiles.

The report, by Abdullah Toukan, said that such an attack would "give rise to regional instability and conflict as well as terrorism."

Such a consequence clearly worried Mullen, too, even though it is not on the immediate horizon.

“What I worry about in terms of an attack on Iran is in addition to the immediate effect, the effect of the attack -- it’s the unintended consequences. It’s the further destabilization in the region," Mullen said. "It’s how they would respond. We have lots of Americans who live in that region who are under the threat envelope right now."

In short, Ashkenazi may have put Israel's case for a focus on Tehran ahead of other Middle Eastern issues but, with the Israeli Government in transition, the immediate approach is not going to be military. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration continues to be in what one might politely call "a review phase" and less politely call "a muddle" over its next steps on Iran.

Target Iran? Israeli Military Chief in Washington For Talks

Here's a story that has set a few tongues wagging and minds racing on the Internet.

The Chief of Staff of the Israeli Military, General Gabi Ashkenazi (pictured), is spending five days in Washington. He's not only seeing the sights but also chatting with National Security Advisor Gen. James L. Jones, special State Department advisor Dennis Ross (still officially concerned with "Southwest Asia and the Gulf"), and military commanders.

Iran's Press TV is a bit over-the-top with its proclamation of "simmering talks of war", but the attention to Tehran, rather than other Middle Eastern issues, is more than justified. While interchanges between Israeli and American military leaders, as part of Tel Aviv's special relationship with the US, are commonplace, the presence of Ross at the discussions is significant. So is the timing.

Israeli diplomats are putting out the story that incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be putting Iran --- not Palestine, not discussions with Syria, but confrontation with Tehran --- as the first priority before the US. This is not surprising, given Netanyahu's pronouncements over the last decade, let alone during the recent electoral campaign, but the willingness of Israeli officials to state this clearly is striking.

For example, one diplomat has revealed that Netanyahu told US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Israel earlier this month, "[Iran] was the be all and end all....If [Washington] wants anything to move on the Palestinian front, we need to take head [sic] on the Iranian threat, diplomatically, with sanctions, and beyond that." (emphasis added)

Clinton allegedly replied, "I am aware of that."

Israeli pressure for a specific move won't come until after the Iranian elections in June, and of course Netanyahu still has to put together a workable coalition in Tel Aviv. Instead, the immediate impact of the Israeli moves, symbolised by Ashkenazi's visit to Washington, may be to limit any American "engagement" with Iran.

"There was one positive coming out of her decision to come here," the Israeli diplomat said. "To make sure everyone realizes that a) she is into this topic, b) that the Obama administration will not let it drop in the priorities list."

An Israeli diplomat offered this spin, either as a reflection of Clinton's attitude or as attempt to box her in: "There was one positive coming out of her decision to come here. To make sure everyone realizes that a) she is into this topic, b) that the Obama administration will not let it drop in the priorities list."

The diplomat continued, "As for substance, there is no [American] policy, which is more or less in a mild way, something she admitted....The Obama administration is in an exploration phase....There is nothing new here. The players are the same. The plot is the same. The solutions are the same."

Of course, the Obama Administration is unlikely to be enthusiastic about the "and beyond that" part of Netanyahu's message to Clinton. This isn't 2003 when the US Government, flush from "victory" in Iraq, could envisage regime change in Tehran as a short- to medium-term opportunity. With Iran now in a position to be useful, if not vital, to Washington on the priority issue of Afghanistan, any ratcheting-up of pressure on Tehran could be counter-productive.

Paradoxically, however, that only ensures that the Israeli Government and supporters will press harder --- even in the absence of a Government in Tel Aviv --- for the "right" US line. This, in part, is why the campaign to block Charles Freeman as head of the National Intelligence Council was so vicious and so symbolic. The next target may well be Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, who is taking the "wrong" line on Tehran with his (accurate) presentation of the US intelligence community's assessment that Iran is not close to The Bomb.

(Robert Dreyfuss draws the far different conclusion: "Here's the reality behind the Freeman debacle: Already worried over Team Obama, suffering the after-effects of the Gaza debacle, and about to be burdened with the Netanyahu-Lieberman problem, the Israel lobby is undoubtedly running scared. They succeeded in knocking off Freeman, but the true test of their strength is yet to come.")

Obama: Finding the Right Word for Russia

Related Post: Space War - Russia and US in Satellite Shoot-out?

The media are going ga-ga over an incident at yesterday's showpiece meeting between US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov. Before their working dinner, Clinton handed Lavrov "a small green box with a ribbon. Inside was a red button with the Russian word peregruzka printed on it."

For many of us older than 35, it was a jaw-dropper in post-Cold War humour. Ohmygosh, Clinton just handed the erstwhile Soviet Commies the nuclear button! Go on, Sergei, push it. Push it with a smile and blow us to oblivion.

All right, it was meant to be a reassurance that Dr Strangelove and Mutual Assured Destruction is so yesterday. But the media, who must be younger than 35, were focused on some inadvertent humour.
l
With the gift, the Americans meant to indicate unsubtly that they wanted to "reset" relations with Russia. However, when Clinton asked if peregruzka was the right word, Lavrov --- obviously not just laughing about annihilation comedy --- replied, "You got it wrong. It should be perezagruzka. This says peregruzka which means overcharged."

Great. We'll now have days of bad political gloss upon the jokes --- Clinton already started it with, "We are resetting, and because we are resetting, the minister and I have an overload of work." Are we screwing the Russians by giving them the wrong change from the relationship? Will the US-Russia talks get too electric over issues like Georgia (the country, not the US state), Iran, and missile defence?

The right word, in fact, is the very boring realpolitik. Clinton's visit with Lavrov yesterday, and Obama's forthcoming meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev at the start of April, fulfil the long-expected Administration approach. The Bush policy, trying to ensure Russian co-operation by putting Moscow in a corner, is scrapped. The white elephant of Missile Defense is gone, although Washington will try to get some Russian reward for the "concession". NATO will not be pushed further onto Russia's doorstep with the entry of Georgia and Ukraine; indeed, the separation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia will be quietly accepted.

Instead, Washington will be looking for Russia's assistance on a number of issues. Immediately, there will be hope that Moscow will help the US get supplies into Afghanistan. The bonus of Russia pull political, economic, and technological support from Iran is still envisaged, even if was not in the Obama letter to Medvedev sent last month. And the US will look for Russia to cause no problems over political and economic development in Eastern Europe.

All very sensible, but all obscuring the realism of realpolitik. Russia holds most of the political cards at the moment. Indeed, Moscow has been showing one of those cards on Afghanistan over recent weeks: no, you can't have your airbase in Kyrgyzstan, yes, you can have our support for non-military supply lines in Afghanistan, maybe you can have assured military routes if there are clear limits on the American bases in the region.

Vladimir Putin, the former Russian leader and still more than a political shadow, even had the cheek this week to point to the card up his sleeve. You know, he said quite loudly, we could hold up energy supplies to the Ukraine.

But you don't even have to look that far to see Moscow's smiling manoeuvres in the new relationship with the US. Hey, Mr Lavrov, now that we gave you that joke gift, how about cutting off Russian supplies for Iran's nuclear programme? The unfunny answer: The decision "will be made exclusively on the basis of law in accordance with Russian law, and will be under expert control, which is one of the strictest in the world and of course in accordance with international agreements."

That would be a No then. And, by the way, Sergei added, "We want our partners to act the same way and show restraint in military supplies to those countries where, including very recently, those weapons have been used very close to our borders."

That was the statement which led to the real comedy moment of the day --- watching State Department staffers burble that in no way was Lavrov thinking of Georgia. Nope, nope, nope.

There will be some screeching from Washington babble-ocracy today --- from some Congressmen, shout sheets like the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard, think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute --- that the Obama Administration has sold out to the Russians, handing them our new Eastern European partners, letting them off the hook on Iran. And some of those folks will pull out the argument that the Russian economy is in no shape to withstand a US kick-back against Moscow's intrigues.

Sorry, folks. The Russian economy may be shaky, but it's a very large shaky economy. There's no way that the world, including the US, can afford for it to collapse, especially when Russia --- with its control of key resources --- can take some folks with it.

Welcome to the Reset of the New Realism. Somewhere Henry Kissinger is giving a chuckle, and not just because it's 21st-century leaders who have to deal with charges of war crimes.