Israeli elections, the US and Iran
Israeli elections, the US and Iran
On Jan. 22 Israelis go to the polls for parliamentary elections. Earlier this week, I joined a roundtable on the likely outcome of the elections and the implications for Israels relations with the US.
The main speaker was a prominent Israeli academic but as the meetings were held under Chatham House rules, I cannot name him.
According to the speaker, current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be reelected as he faces no serious challenge. He claimed that foreign policy and security issues have not been a significant factor in the election campaign. The reason for this being the other runners are not as tough as Netanyahu on security-related issues. What is clear is that with Netanyahu remaining at the helm, Israeli-US relations will enter a very difficult period with a serious clash between Barack Obama and Netanyahu likely; we have already seen a taste of it in the media over recent days. The two are at odds over Netanyahus policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians, with Obama apparently becoming increasingly fed up with Israels defiant settlement policy. Obama is increasingly irritated by the very hard-line and uncompromising policies of Netanyahu more broadly.
Israel is panicked about developments in the region. The future shape of Syria; the situation in Lebanon, which the speaker labeled a failed state; the role of Turkey; and what the speaker cited as the Islamification of Egypt, labeling Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi as anti-Semitic and set on making Egypt an Islamic dictatorship.
Iran remains Israels number one foreign policy issue and Obamas recent nominations of John Kerry as secretary of state and Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense has freaked Israel out, casting another shadow over relations. While Kerry is viewed as soft, our speaker labeled Hagel as an isolationist who would damage the image of the US. Hagel has been against sanctions on Iran, favoring a broader diplomatic approach. To Israel, this sort of policy only serves to encourage Iran to continue doing what it is doing.
Round after round of sanctions have been slapped on Iran, yet Tehran remains defiant. While the EU embargo on Irans oil hit its economy hard and has had a negative effect on the lives of ordinary people, it has not resulted in the slowing of Irans nuclear program. When society complains about the hardship, Irans leadership blames the West. Moreover, as long as countries like India and China continue to purchase Iranian oil, the regime will survive. According to a Chinese academic I spoke to, China has no intention of stopping trade with Iran, with which Beijing has strong ties.
Iranian society has suffered continually from sanctions and embargoes. Most memorable to me is the embargo that was placed during the premiership of Irans former Prime Minister, Mohammed Mosaddegh in 1951. The UK was furious over Mosaddeghs nationalization of Irans oil industry and imposed a worldwide embargo on the purchase of Iranian oil. This crippled Irans economy. Ultimately, Mosaddegh was overthrown by a joint Anglo-American operation, code-named Operation Ajax. These developments had a profound impact on the path that the country took thereafter and its view of the West.
For Israel, the clock is ticking. If the new round of 5+1 talks fails, Obama is going to find himself in a very difficult situation with Israel pushing him to choose between a nuclear Iran and a military operation. The speaker at the meeting believed Obama would choose a nuclear Iran because of the huge consequences of a military strike: catastrophic for the region with no guarantee that it would end Irans nuclear program. Yet if Israel decided to go ahead anyway, the US would probably find itself sucked in. And even if there is no military strike, the consequences of a nuclear Iran are huge. Until now, the world seems to have avoided discussing how it would deal with this eventuality. To avoid this choice, the negotiation pattern must change: no pre-conditions and a deal which Iran will not lose face over. If this does not happen, I fear Obama will be facing this between a rock and a hard place choice sooner rather than later.
Israeli elections, the US and Iran
On Jan. 22 Israelis go to the polls for parliamentary elections. Earlier this week, I joined a roundtable on the likely outcome of the elections and the implications for Israels relations with the US.
The main speaker was a prominent Israeli academic but as the meetings were held under Chatham House rules, I cannot name him.
According to the speaker, current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be reelected as he faces no serious challenge. He claimed that foreign policy and security issues have not been a significant factor in the election campaign. The reason for this being the other runners are not as tough as Netanyahu on security-related issues. What is clear is that with Netanyahu remaining at the helm, Israeli-US relations will enter a very difficult period with a serious clash between Barack Obama and Netanyahu likely; we have already seen a taste of it in the media over recent days. The two are at odds over Netanyahus policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians, with Obama apparently becoming increasingly fed up with Israels defiant settlement policy. Obama is increasingly irritated by the very hard-line and uncompromising policies of Netanyahu more broadly.
Israel is panicked about developments in the region. The future shape of Syria; the situation in Lebanon, which the speaker labeled a failed state; the role of Turkey; and what the speaker cited as the Islamification of Egypt, labeling Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi as anti-Semitic and set on making Egypt an Islamic dictatorship.
Iran remains Israels number one foreign policy issue and Obamas recent nominations of John Kerry as secretary of state and Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense has freaked Israel out, casting another shadow over relations. While Kerry is viewed as soft, our speaker labeled Hagel as an isolationist who would damage the image of the US. Hagel has been against sanctions on Iran, favoring a broader diplomatic approach. To Israel, this sort of policy only serves to encourage Iran to continue doing what it is doing.
Round after round of sanctions have been slapped on Iran, yet Tehran remains defiant. While the EU embargo on Irans oil hit its economy hard and has had a negative effect on the lives of ordinary people, it has not resulted in the slowing of Irans nuclear program. When society complains about the hardship, Irans leadership blames the West. Moreover, as long as countries like India and China continue to purchase Iranian oil, the regime will survive. According to a Chinese academic I spoke to, China has no intention of stopping trade with Iran, with which Beijing has strong ties.
Iranian society has suffered continually from sanctions and embargoes. Most memorable to me is the embargo that was placed during the premiership of Irans former Prime Minister, Mohammed Mosaddegh in 1951. The UK was furious over Mosaddeghs nationalization of Irans oil industry and imposed a worldwide embargo on the purchase of Iranian oil. This crippled Irans economy. Ultimately, Mosaddegh was overthrown by a joint Anglo-American operation, code-named Operation Ajax. These developments had a profound impact on the path that the country took thereafter and its view of the West.
For Israel, the clock is ticking. If the new round of 5+1 talks fails, Obama is going to find himself in a very difficult situation with Israel pushing him to choose between a nuclear Iran and a military operation. The speaker at the meeting believed Obama would choose a nuclear Iran because of the huge consequences of a military strike: catastrophic for the region with no guarantee that it would end Irans nuclear program. Yet if Israel decided to go ahead anyway, the US would probably find itself sucked in. And even if there is no military strike, the consequences of a nuclear Iran are huge. Until now, the world seems to have avoided discussing how it would deal with this eventuality. To avoid this choice, the negotiation pattern must change: no pre-conditions and a deal which Iran will not lose face over. If this does not happen, I fear Obama will be facing this between a rock and a hard place choice sooner rather than later.
