Analysis: 'New' Washington Consensus on Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process!

The tripartite meeting between Israeli, Palestinian, and American delegations took place in New York on Tuesday, with the leaders of the three groups participating. This was the picture which signals a shift in the US apparoach towards the Palestinian-Israeli conflict , from a step-by-step Road Map to an edited Washington version of a 2002 Saudi initiative based on wider issues and a regional context.

Yet Washington's "middle way" between the demands of Palestinians and Israelis is not new. The steps taken in the Obama Administration's Middle East foreign policy since last January were supposed to be clearer when the leaders of Israelis and Palestinians shook hands on Tuesday. But even this picture is incomplete, since the failure to include regional actors such as Syria, Iran, Lebanon and Iraq will undermine any effort on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

According to Washington, the final status agreement must come with continuing negotiations on other issues, especially on the Israeli halt of settlements in the West Bank. The formula is clear: the reassurance of the Palestinian side with the promised withdrawal of Israelis to pre-1967 war borders while reducing pressure on the Israeli side by moving the discourse of “total settlement freeze” to that of “restraining settlements activity” as the Israeli concede a nine-month freeze.



On Tuesday, U.S. President met with the Israeli delegation at first. Then, he talked to the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and his aides. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, National Security Council head Uzi Arad, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mitchell took part in the earlier bilateral Israeli-American meeting. At the end, the tripartite meeting finally was displayed.

"Permanent status negotiations must begin and begin soon. And more importantly, we must give those negotiations the opportunity to succeed," Obama said and added:

It is past time to talk about starting negotiations; it is time to move forward. It is time to show flexibility and common sense and sense of compromise that is necessary to achieve our goals... Leaders in the Middle East could not continue 'the same patterns, taking tentative steps forward, then taking steps back.'

For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel achieved what it had wanted after the tripartite meeting. He said to reporters in New York:

There was general agreement, including on the part of the Palestinians, that the peace process has to be resumed as soon as possible with no preconditions... We had two good meetings, even very good, I would say – one with President Obama and his team and later with the Palestinian team. Although the importance of the meeting is in its existence, it was an ice-breaking meeting between people who have not worked with each other for months. It provides a possibility to change things in the future.

However, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was not as “positive” as his premier. He actually saw eye to eye with Abbas and said that "although the Palestinian side is saying it has no preconditions, it has all kinds of demands for moves in the West Bank." On the other hand, Netanyahu kept calm and came closer to Obama's diplomatic stance. He said:

They can raise the Jerusalem issue and we'll present our stance... In the joint meeting with Abu Mazen (Abbas) I told him that 'there is no use in insisting on these matters. Let's move forward.'

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas did not mention Netanyahu's 'talks without any preconditions' and reiterated that Israel had to leave all occupied lands and stop construction in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. He said:

In today's meetings we confirmed our positions and commitment to the road map and its implementation. We also demanded that the Israeli side fulfill its commitments on settlements, including on natural growth.

As for resuming talks, this depends on a definition of the negotiating process that means basing them on recognizing the need to withdraw to the 1967 borders and ending the occupation, as was discussed with the previous Israeli government when we defined the occupied territories as the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem.

This was reiterated in the talks with President Obama and in the trilateral talks. We believe the American administration will review the positions of the two sides in the coming weeks to make it possible for us to renew peace talks based on our stated position.

At the end of the tripartite meeting, we can say that the political discourses of each disputed party has not changed. For Israel, the following negotiations will continue without any Palestinian pre-conditions and for Palestinians, there will be no agreement without the withdrawal of Israeli existence and without a full halt to settlement construction. Lastly, and more importantly, for the Obama Administration, the process is likely to be a middle way: Guaranteeing Palestinians the full withdrawal of Israeli soldiers from the occupied lands and the Israeli halt to settlement freeze under Israeli authorization in the course of time; all of which to be mentioned in the final status agreement whereas confirming Israeli temporary freeze in settlements which is to come closer to a total halt in the course of time in return of Arab concessions in the name of normalization with Israel. So, all parties look like they have taken from the meeting now.

George Mitchell's answer to a question on whether the Obama Administration had skipped the settlement freeze focus and moved straight to final status issue tipped off the US position:

We have always made clear that they are means to an end, the end being the re-launching of negotiations on permanent status in a context in which there is a reasonable prospect for a successful conclusion to those negotiations... So there is absolutely no change in our focus.

However, this new version of Saudi Initiative in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is just a part of the Obama Administration's policy in the region. This middle-way solution can only work with new developments in US and Israeli relations with Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. The follow-up period, so sensitive to any regional development, is more significant than the plans of the Obama Administration on paper. Therefore, right after the tripartite meeting, Obama said he is watching the process closely and the U.S. Mideast special envoy George Mitchell would meet with Israeli and Palestinian negotiators next week, adding that he had asked his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, to report back to him on the status of the talks in October. For now, the Obama Administration has consolidated its position vis-a-vis Palestinians and Israelis. But, that is only for now....

Transcript: George Mitchell on Obama-Abbas-Netanyahu Meeting

After the end of the tripartite meeting, the U.S. Mideast special envoy George Mitchell briefed reporters and answered questions. Here is the background of the meeting and what the outcome of this meeting means:

Transcript:

MR. GIBBS: Good afternoon. Sorry we're running a little bit late today. We will do a statement from, and take some questions -- our Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, former Senator George Mitchell.

SENATOR MITCHELL: Thank you, Robert. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'll make a brief statement, and then I'll be pleased to respond to your questions.

The President had direct and constructive meetings with both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas, and then he held his first trilateral meeting with the two leaders. As the President said, this was an important moment. Let me first give you some brief details.

Each of the three meetings was about 40 minutes long. The tone was positive and determined. The President made clear his commitment to moving forward, and the leaders shared their commitment. In the meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas, the President was joined by Secretary Clinton, General Jones, Tom Donilon and myself. For the trilateral meeting, the President was joined by Secretary Clinton, General Jones and myself.



In their meetings, Prime Minister Netanyahu was joined by Foreign Minister Lieberman, Defense Minister Barak, and National Security Advisor Arad. President Abbas was joined by Secretary General Yasser Abed Rabo, Negotiations Affairs Department Director Saeb Erekat, and Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Maliki.

This was the first meeting between Israelis and Palestinians at this level in nearly a year. Even nine months ago, such a meeting did not seem possible. Less than a week before President Obama took office, conflict was raging in Gaza and southern Israel, causing deep suffering on both sides. Today the atmosphere is different. Both parties share the goal of a two-state solution and of comprehensive peace. And both parties seek the re-launch of negotiations as soon as possible, although there are differences between them on how to proceed. The United States stands with them to help advance toward these objectives.

We have made progress, on security and economic opportunity in particular, but we have much further to go. As the President said in his public comments, it's past time to talk about starting negotiations. All sides must summon the will to move forward. Permanent status negotiations must begin, and begin soon. This was a message that the President conveyed to each of the leaders in private, as well.

We're now going to enter into an intensive, yet brief, period of discussion in an effort to re-launch negotiations. Our aim is clear: to finally succeed in achieving our shared goals and to end the cycle of conflict that has done so much harm.

I will be meeting with my Israeli and Palestinian counterparts, and with the Arab states as well, and we'll build on the work that was done today to encourage all parties to take responsibility for peace and to act on their commitments.

I want to make a brief personal comment. I believe deeply, rising out of my past experience, that just as conflicts are created by human beings, they can be ended by human beings, with patience, determination, and dedication. Our aim is to achieve a comprehensive peace in the region that will enable Israelis, Palestinians, and all of the region's people to share a secure, prosperous, and stable future.

We knew this wasn’t going to be easy. It's a mark of the President's deep, personal and ongoing commitment to peace that he chose to participate directly at this juncture. As he said today in his public comments, despite all the obstacles, despite all of the history, despite all of the mistrust, we have to find a way forward. That's what we will be focused on in the days ahead.

Now, I'd like to just read to you a couple of quotes from what the President said in the meetings. I wrote these down -- they're either 100 percent accurate or very close to 100 percent accurate. (Laughter.)

He said, "It's difficult to disentangle ourselves from history, but we must do so." "The only reason to hold public office is to get things done." "We all must take risks for peace." "Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is critical to Israel's security and is necessary for Palestinians to realize their aspirations."

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and now I'll be pleased to take your questions. And I'll leave it to Robert to identify the questioners.

MR. GIBBS: Jen.

Q You said that -- you were talking about your own respect for the President's willingness to engage in the process at this point. Why did you decide to go (inaudible) these meetings even though there's nothing to announce and the two sides remain so far apart? Why did you decide to take that step?

SENATOR MITCHELL: Because of his deep personal commitment and his desire to move forward to convey to the parties his sense of urgency, his impatience, his view that there is here a unique opportunity at this moment in time. That may pass if there is further delay. And as I said in my remarks, I think it does demonstrate his -- it's a demonstration of the depth and sincerity of his commitment.

Q But why is this a moment of opportunity when they're so far apart right now?

SENATOR MITCHELL: Well -- I'm sorry, you can't hear her?

Q Can't hear.

SENATOR MITCHELL: Yes, she said, why is it a moment of opportunity when they're so far apart right now?

First, the reality is that while differences remain between them, we have made very substantial progress. And without being argumentative, I would not characterize their positions as being so far apart right now. Secondly, it is precisely because there are still differences and that we need to move forward that the President elected to hold this meeting for the very purpose of seeking to impress upon the parties the need for urgency and to close these final gaps.

Q As you said, the tone of the President's comments to the press was one of impatience. And I'm just wondering what specifically was said in the talks today that give the President hope that this can move forward? You talked about things that have happened in the past that you see as progress. But what happened today? What did they say in the talks that made him feel like this can go forward?

SENATOR MITCHELL: I would not be so presumptuous as to quote the other leaders, but I can tell you my understanding and interpretation of their comments was that they are committed to a comprehensive peace. They both, of course, have previously expressed their support for a two-state solution. They recognize the urgency of moving promptly and have so stated. But they did restate their views and their positions on those issues on which there remain differences.

And so I think it will be very helpful for them to have heard from the President the views that I've just identified that he has and has expressed to them, and to recognize that, notwithstanding all of the many issues which he confronts, that he is prepared to take the time at this juncture, when there is not an agreement between them to re-launch negotiations, to devote his time, effort, and his -- what I think is his deep commitment to get this process going, to move to the next stage.

Q I know you don't want to quote for them, but can you talk about the tone of the conversation?

SENATOR MITCHELL: The tone was at all times cordial. It was direct, frank. I think it fair to say at some points, one could describe comments as blunt on all sides. These are men who have serious responsibilities, who recognize their responsibilities, and I believe the President impressed upon them, including but not limited to some of the quotations I read out here, that this is a matter of urgency.

Q The administration has spent the last few months focused intensely on settlement freeze on the -- of the Israelis, and confidence-building measures on the part of the Palestinians. Now, today you're talking about the need to move quickly to permanent status negotiations. Does that mean you've decided to skip the settlement freeze focus, and that it might be easier and quicker to get results if you go -- move straight to final status?

SENATOR MITCHELL: Our objective all along has been to re-launch meaningful final status negotiations in a context that offered the prospect for success. We have never identified the steps requested as ends in themselves. We have always made clear that they are means to an end, the end being the re-launching of negotiations on permanent status in a context in which there is a reasonable prospect for a successful conclusion to those negotiations.

So there is absolutely no change in our focus. There is no change in what we feel is the way forward. We want to get negotiations re-launched, and everything we have said and done in this period has been in an effort to achieve that objective.

Q But are you moving --

Q -- about the format of the negotiations? Will the U.S. be at the table, or are there going to be only bilateral, or will the Quartet be somehow involved?

SENATOR MITCHELL: We have had discussions with negotiators from both sides on those and many other issues. We anticipate that there will be a substantial period of time -- in I would say a matter of weeks -- between the time that there is an agreement to re-launch negotiations and the time that they commence. And we will, during that period, explore in even greater detail than we have the resolution of those issues.

We anticipate that there will be an active United States presence. But of course that does not preclude the likelihood of direct negotiations between the parties. No successful negotiation is all of one or all of the other. There has to be both in appropriate circumstances on appropriate subjects. And we're going to try to proceed in a manner that is guided by a single standard: What is the method that will be best calculated to achieve the desired result of a comprehensive peace in the region?

Q Can I ask if you've got any more details on who is going to participate in the intensive talks in New York this week, in Washington next week? And what realistically can Secretary Clinton report back to President Obama so quickly -- he said mid-October, right?

SENATOR MITCHELL: Right. I will meet on Thursday in New York with two representatives of the Prime Minister of Israel -- Isaac Molcho and Mike Herzog -- both of whom have participated very actively in the discussions that have gone on. I also will meet with Saeb Erekat in behalf of the Palestinians, with whom also we've had extensive discussions. I expect also to meet with Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak, with whom I've also met on many, many occasions.

We do not yet know the composition of the negotiators that they will send next week, but we anticipate that they will be the same ones -- either those I mentioned or people with whom we have also been engaged over the past several months.

Q How directly was the issue of a settlement freeze discussed? Did you push the U.S. view that they were illegal?

SENATOR MITCHELL: I'm sorry. What's the question?

Q How directly did you -- was the issue of the freeze on settlements discussed? And was there any pushing of the -- what I understand is the U.S. position that they are illegal?

SENATOR MITCHELL: Our position remains unchanged. It was discussed in all of the meetings. And we will continue to do the best we can to achieve a re-launch of negotiations. I want to emphasize our objective from the beginning over the last several months has been very focused, a re-launch of negotiations. The actions we've asked parties to take were not ends in themselves; they were means to the end. And that's the end we continue to seek.

Q And is this the obstacle, now? Is it still the obstacle?

SENATOR MITCHELL: I'm sorry?

Q Is it still the obstacle, the settlements?

SENATOR MITCHELL: There are many obstacles. They're not -- I want to make clear there are differences that remain, and that is one. That's not the only one, there are others. We have substantially and significantly progressed in reducing the number of issues on which there is disagreement. And we hope to complete that process in the near future.

Q Senator Mitchell, does the President support the Israeli proposal a temporary freeze of settlements for six to nine months? Does he support that, a temporary freeze of settlements?

SENATOR MITCHELL: We are continuing our discussions on that issue with both sides on how best to create the context for a re-launching of negotiations, and the -- (cell phone rings) --

MR. GIBBS: -- in the Senate and peace in the Middle East, the respect doesn't come. (Laughter.)

SENATOR MITCHELL: We had worked that out so that you'd do that when I get a tough question. (Laughter.) From now on you've got to do a little bit better in terms of the timing. (Laughter.)

And so that's what we are continuing our discussions on. We have not reached an agreement on that issue.

Q And do you think the temporary freeze would be enough to move to the final status negotiations? Is the President still in favor, he wants to see a complete freeze with all settlement activity?

SENATOR MITCHELL: We are continuing our discussions on that issue. And we're trying to bring it to a point where we can re-launch the negotiations, and we could discuss it with both sides.

Q Senator Mitchell, I want to push you on this question of a -- I know you said there hasn't been a change in what you guys are doing. However, over -- since the administration has been in office, you guys have been pushing very hard on the settlement issue and not talking as much about moving directly to final status talks. And so I guess I'm wondering has there been -- was there any discussion in the meetings today that changes or alters the approach to moving quickly to final status talks? And if not, then why the sort of apparent change in rhetoric from the President?

SENATOR MITCHELL: With the greatest of respect, I do not share your characterization of what we have done. It may be the case that the public reports have emphasized that area at the expense of others, but we have been very clear from the beginning, first, that there is a wide range of issues, and we have made significant progress on those issues, and that they were all directed to a single point, and that was a re-launch of negotiations.

I'll just tell you a story to tell you how I'm feeling right now. When I was Senate majority leader, we had a long and contentious series of debates and actions on a major issue, and we had resolved what I thought were most of the issues; there will still differences. And lo and behold, a big article appeared, I think it was in The Washington Post, which, wouldn't you know it, highlighted the differences, and proclaimed it a failure. And I asked the reporter, in a polite but complaining way -- (laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: From The Washington Post.

SENATOR MITCHELL: And he responded. He said, Senator, you will never see a headline that says "Two million commuters made it safely to work today. But if one car crashes and a couple of people are killed, that will be the headline." He said, "That's the way the world works." And I accept that's the way the world works. But the emphasis which you describe has not come from us. We have emphasized -- I have repeatedly said our objective is to re-launch negotiations. And all of these are steps to achieve that end.

And we have made significant progress in many of the areas -- economic growth, very substantial; agreement on the removal of illegal outposts; a whole series of other actions regarding specific areas that I understand don't get attention precisely because we've passed the stage of disagreement over them.

So we're going to continue our efforts. We believe that we have come a long way; that there is a very decisive difference in where we are now than where we were when the President took office; and we feel a sense of urgency to take it the next step and to bring it to a conclusion.

Q I'm sorry, can you start final status negotiations without the settlement issue being resolved? And should that happen?

SENATOR MITCHELL: We are not identifying any issue as being a precondition or an impediment to negotiation. Neither the President, nor the Secretary, nor I have ever said of any one issue, that or any other, that it is a precondition to negotiations. What we have said is that we want to get into negotiations. We believe the suggestions that we've made and the requests that we've made would, if accepted and acted upon, create the most favorable conditions available to try to achieve success in those negotiations. But we do not believe in preconditions. We do not impose them. And we urge others not to impose preconditions.

MR. GIBBS: Thanks, guys.

SENATOR MITCHELL: Thank you, all.

Iran: Welcoming Obama's Missile Defense Plan, Signalling to Moscow

The Latest from Iran (22 September): A Trip to New York

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

On Monday, Hassan Qashqavi, spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry, welcomed the Obama Administration's declaration that it was abandoning plans to base missile defence in Eastern Europe:

"The Islamic Republic of Iran welcomes any act or plan which results in the removal of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world, and, considers the removal of nuclear and other destructive weapons by the big powers as a service to world peace and security, if it is real and true."

However, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has reiterated that Iran is still the main threat justifying the deployment plan of defense missile system. Indeed, she said that Washington was going to deploy missiles sooner than the Bush Administration planned to do so, albeit from ships rather than the sites in Poland and the Czech Republic.

So, what does Teheran's statement mean, especially after Moscow's recent carrot/stick policy, offing diplomatic protection against any international sanctions and military support in return for political influence in Iran? It appears to be a clever move to keep attention on a US-Russian rivalry, with Iran as an excuse rather than a cause for missile defence. Qashqavi claimed, "Adopting the claim of a missile threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran was an opportunistic and domination-seeking US scam with political aims." He added:

From the beginning, the Islamic Republic of Iran has seen the basing of the missile system in Eastern Europe as part of the missile [force] rivalries between Russia and the US, and the expansion of the penetration of extra-regional security areas and a continuation of the penetration of the big powers in the Central European countries.

Brzezinski: Grand Strategy and Shooting Down Israel's Jets Over Iraq

In an interview with the Daily Beast's Gerald Posner, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser to U.S. President Jimmy Carter, said on Sunday that President Obama's scrapping missile defense was the right thing to do. The George W. Bush Administration's defense missile shield project had been based on "a nonexistent defense technology, designed against a nonexistent threat".

This, however, become an irrelevance next to Brzezinski's more provocative assertion: Washington has to shoot down Israeli jets over Iraqi airspace if they are en route to attack Iran. This would be an example of US assertiveness to ensure the success of engagement with Tehran and Middle Eastern states. It would be a marker of a "strong strategy" backed-up with decisiveness, lacking in US foreign policy.

Transcript:

Is the Obama administration decision to end the missile-defense program the right one?

Well, let me first of all say that my view on this subject for the last two years has been that the Bush missile-shield proposal was based on a nonexistent defense technology, designed against a nonexistent threat, and designed to protect West Europeans, who weren’t asking for the protection.

Does scrapping the missile program weaken our defense options in Europe vis-à-vis the Russians?

Not at all. What is left is militarily sounder. It gives the U.S. more options while still enhancing America’s ability to develop more effective defense systems, which is what the Russians really dislike. But now they have less of an excuse to bitch about it.

What about the way we informed our allies of our decision?

The way it was conveyed to the Czechs and Poles could not have been worse. It involved [laughs] waking up the Czech prime minster after midnight with a sudden phone call from President Obama. The Polish prime minister was at least allowed to sleep late. But as far as Poland was concerned, unfortunately, poor staff work did not alert the United States that today, September 17, is a particularly painful anniversary for Poland. In 1939, the Poles were still fighting the Germans when on September 17 the Russians stabbed them in the back. To the Poles, that is something very painful. And since they misconstrued—and I emphasize the word “misconstrue”—that the missile shield somehow strengthened their relationship with the U.S. when it comes to Russia, it was immediately suggestive of the notion of a sellout. It’s the wrong conclusion, but in politics, even wrong conclusions have to be anticipated.

How is it possible that the State Department did not bring up the sensitivity of this day to the Poles?

Lousy staff work. Period. I don’t know who precisely to point the finger at. It was obviously not anticipated in this case.

There are some pundits who believe that by abandoning the missile-defense program, we will gain the help of Russia when it comes to arm-twisting Iran over its nuclear weapons program. Anything to that?

I doubt it. The Russians have their own interests in Iran, which are far more complex than the simplistic notion that the Russians want to help us with Iran. The Russians have a complicated agenda with Iran. They also know in the back of their heads that if worse came to worse—and I am not saying they are deliberately promoting the worst—but if worse came to worse, which is an American-Iranian military collision, who would pay the highest price for that? First, America, whose success in ending the Cold War the Russians still bitterly resent. And we would also pay a high price in Iraq, Afghanistan, and massively so with regards to the price of oil. Second, who would suffer the most? The Chinese, who the Russians view as a long-range threat and of whom they are very envious, because the Chinese get much more of their oil from the Middle East than we do, and the skyrocketing price would hurt them even more than us. Third, who would then be totally dependent on the Russians? The West Europeans. And fourth, who would cash in like crazy? The Kremlin.

Is the fallout as bad if Israel preemptively strikes Iran?

Absolutely. That is the way, more importantly, how the Iranians would view it. They really can’t do much to the Israelis, despite all their bluster. The only thing they can do is unify themselves, especially nationalistically, to rally against us, and the mullahs might even think of it as a blessing.

How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?

We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?

What if they fly over anyway?

Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse. [Israeli jet fighters and torpedo boats attacked the USS Liberty in international waters, off the Sinai Peninsula, during the Six-Day War in 1967. Israel later claimed the ship was the object of friendly fire.]

Did it surprise you that it took the Obama administration so long to do away with the missile-defense program? Is he setting firm lines that can’t be crossed, such as with Iran and Israel?

Well, Obama has been very impressive in refining our policy toward the world on a lot of issues, very impressive. But he has been relatively much less impressive in the follow-through.

You mean his policy sounds ideal but the follow-up isn’t good?

Not as precise, clear-cut, and forthcoming as would be desirable.

What would you like have seen already from this administration?

By now we should have been able to formulate a clearer posture on what we are prepared to do to promote a Palestinian-Israeli peace. Simply giving a frequent-traveler ticket to George Mitchell is not the same thing as policy. It took a long time to get going on Iran, but there is an excuse there, the Iranian domestic mess. And we are now eight months into the administration, and I would have thought by now we could have formulated a strategy that we would have considered “our” strategy for dealing with Iran and Pakistan. For example, the Carter administration, which is sometimes mocked, by now had in motion a policy of disarmament with the Russians, which the Russians didn’t like, but eventually bought; it had started a policy of normalization with the Chinese; it rammed through the Panama Canal treaty; and it was moving very, very openly toward an Israeli-Arab political peace initiative.

Where did the impetus come from in the Carter administration, and why aren’t we seeing it with Obama?

There was a closer connection between desire and execution. Also the president was not as deeply embroiled, and buffeted, by a very broad, and commendable and ambitious domestic program as President Obama is. I think the Republican onslaught to the president, the wavering of some Democrats, has vastly complicated not only his choices in foreign affairs, but even limited the amount of attention he can give to them.

Is there truth that the more issues he is embroiled in, the less he can act?

I don’t think it’s the number of issues; it’s how decisively a president acts. A president, in his first year, is at the peak of his popularity, and if he acts decisively, even if some oppose him, most will rally around him, out of patriotism, out of opportunism, out of loyalty, out of the crowd instinct, just a variety of human motives.

Some in the Obama administration have told me that it’s only just over half a year, and we are jumping to too early conclusions about anything. Are the early months more critical than other times in an administration?

The first year is decisive. How much you can set in motion the first year sets the tone for much of the rest of the term. In part, that’s because all these things take more than one year to complete. But the point is you want to have a dynamic start that carries momentum with it.

President Carter early on ran into strong opposition from American-based pro-Israeli lobbying groups that opposed the administration’s ideas for a peace initiative in the Middle East. What lesson should the Obama administration learn in formulating its own approach to an Israeli-Palestinian dialogue?

The lesson is if you are forthright in what you are seeking, you tend to mobilize support within the Jewish community. Because a majority of American Jews are liberal, and in the long run they know that peace in the Middle East is absolutely essential to Israel’s long-term survival.

Are you concerned about Afghanistan?

Quite unintentionally, but potentially and tragically, we are sliding into a posture which is beginning—and I emphasize the word “beginning”—to be reminiscent of what happened to the Soviets.

We have plenty of time to reverse course?

There is some time to reverse course. But time flies.

Iran: Russia Plays Big (Protective) Brother

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

On Sunday, in an interview with CNN, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said that his Israeli counterpart Shimon Peres assured him that Israel would not launch an attack on Iran. Describing, an attack as "the worst thing that can be imagined," he said, "When he visited me in Sochi, Israeli President Peres said something important for us all: 'Israel does not plan to launch any strikes on Iran, we are a peaceful country and we will not do this.'"

Asked about the possible delivery of advanced S-300 anti-aircraft missiles, Medvedev said Russia had the right to sell defensive weapons to Iran. As for non-military measures, the Russian leader declared that sanctions are often ineffective and no action should be taken against Iran except as a last resort.

There will undoubtedly be much grumbling about Moscow's position and, conversely, some unsupported declarations that the Russians can be brought around to back stricter economic measure. The cold political reality is that, in this international conjunction of events, Russia sees its advantage in playing Tehran's "big brother". Strengthening the military relationship through the sales of S-300s and increasing its economical and political position with, Moscow hopes not only to consolidate its power in the Middle East but also to maintain leverage against Washington on issues such as the reduction of strategic offensive weapons and the deployment of missile defense system.