A lot of effort was invested by both Israeli and American diplomats and spin masters to create the impression that the Netanyahu-Obama meeting was successful, but I remain skeptical.
Body language is not a precise science (or is it?...), but watching the two leaders making their initial statements before entering the Oval Office clearly indicated nervousness and tension, particularly on the part of President Obama. He surely paid careful attention to the lack of the word 'diplomacy' in Netanyahu's remarks, as well as to the repeated reference to Israel's right to self defense. Also, Netanyahu's emphasis on his obligation as a leader of a Jewish state was a prelude to the history lesson later to be delivered at his AIPAC speech.
Moreover, it was another reminder to those who still need it that Israel's approach about Iran is greatly motivated by the past, with the heavy burden which it places on every Israeli leader confronted with the need to make a crucial, historic decision. The president, on the other hand, spoke about the future, the efforts still to be made in order to prevent a nuclear Iran. In this regard, the president announced a significant change of policy, by abandoning containment as an option, and opting for prevention. Netanyahu was polite enough to note the change, but he was expecting another word from the host: preemption. At any rate, the contrast between the different emphasis of the two leaders was stark.
Then there is the fact that no joint communiqué was issued after the meeting, not completely against the protocol but still indicative of the continued existence of problems. Both sides tried to come up with a positive spin, as they emphasized Netanyahu's assurance to the president that no final decision was taken by Israel about the military option against Iran. Did any one, even first year students of political science, really expect the Israeli leader to say something else to the president? But then, the leak/spin serves both leaders very well. Netanyahu continues with his policy of ambiguity, Obama can gain some days of no spike in the price of gas, as the fear of an immediate military eruption, which was overplayed to start with, seems to have receded, at least for some time.
So, all that is really signaling the end of the beginning, the end of the stage, where the Iranian nuclear project was somewhat of a subject to be discussed, rather than an immediate problem to be resolved. Now, a new stage starts, the countdown towards a decision, can diplomacy work, or are we left with the inevitable military option? Netanyahu left us still somewhat bewildered after his AIPAC speech, but the direction is clear. He spoke about the diplomatic option in past tense, "we WAITED for diplomacy to succeed," indicating both his disbelief that this is a potentially successful option, and also his growing impatience. This was amplified by specifically stating that there is not much time left for the option that, to start with, he is so skeptical about.
In fact, a great deal of the speech sounded as if it was meant to be the retroactive justification to a military strike, particularly the dramatic comparison between now and the refusal of the Allies to bomb the Auschwitz death camp in 1944. Historians will surely debate the pros and cons of the comparison, but the PM message was loud and clear, and it was that between trusting others and taking an independent Jewish action, the choice is clear. Is it really? Did the PM corner himself, in a way, which has restricted his options to the minimum? Not yet, but very close to that. It may surprise some people who are not Netanyahu's watchers, but a careful scrutiny of his career reveals that the PM has never made a decision leading to a major military operation on the part of Israel. Those who object to an Israeli military strike can be encouraged by that, as well as the fact that he did not refer to a specific time table, though implying that this is a matter of few months at the most. This is where the president, for his part, can still play a decisive role.
Mr. Obama basically told Netanyahu, "trust me," something that he will have to prove the effectiveness of in a relatively short period of time. Can he do it in a way that will convince an Israeli leader so much engulfed with his understanding of history and its lessons? We do not have too much time to know the answer.
But why haven't we heard anything from the two big heads about the most certainly very big expenditure of their preferred, another Mideast war? We've got to discuss at least a little bit of its financing before it's got started---it's plain common sense, not rocket science at all.
There does not seem to be one world leader today advocating peace without playing games with the concept. The UN? Well they seem to be asleep.
This period reminds me of the era just before World War One, the time of entangling alliances that got 35 million people killed for nothing. None of our leaders seems to have a clue. They do in fact seem like the 1914 leadership, confident and arrogant and callous.
Will we drift into a real war, that gets out of hand? It is possible. Now is the time to prevent it. After hostilities begin the big powers may be drawn in.
We have become stupidly accustomed to teeny, tiny wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. Think Verdun or the Battle of the Somme or Stalingrad and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
If Iran and Israel want to fight it out, we should hope everyone else (including the USA) stays out of it. But that tis unlikely.
He has already decided, so there need be no options.With war and the resultant uprising of Arabs he will have a free hand to finish the ethnic cleansing, rain bombs on Gaza and Lebanon and stillplay the victim and America will continue to pour billions in.
Netanyahu is a dangerous and disingenuous man. He is not to be trusted. Since he didn't get what he wanted from Obama in this latest meeting, he went immediately to our Congress, to those we elected to represent OUR interests, who continue to fawn over his every word. He plays them like a fiddle, and they are happy to dance to his tune regardless of the quality of the music. Here's the precedent from May of last year (and nothing seems to have changed):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52CiEbDBEh8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMMuHmvuWc0&feature=related
It's disgusting to me that this takes place. Can someone tell me why?
We do not know what the final bill is for the US to keep up this bridgehead, but it looks like an awful lot, when you include the 2 billion for Egypt's military as that is clearly designed to be a protective measure for Israel, who has 'gambled' away approximately 90 % of her sympathisers. Iran hates Russia, Britain, and the US because they all deceived them at some point. So none of these can be mediators.
How long the US can fund her bridgehead, and if it is worth another war, is very questionnable. If Israel keeps on that path to tap into America's riches, i.e. the costly military, the point will come when anti-semitism will grow again. Great result.
http://www.controversyofzion.info/Controversybook/Controversybook_eng_43.htm
Truth told: If Israel attacks Iran, prices of gasoline will sky-rocket. In addition, Israel cannot sustain a prolonged war. If Israel starts a pre-emptive strike, they will expect the US to come to their rescue. Yesterday a number of retired military generals ran a full-page ad in the Washington Post advising against military action in Iran. They know that military action would involve a full scale invasion costing the lives of thousands of young Americans.
I favor Obama's strategy of diplomatic and economic sanctions. It's the only option available. Israel's insistance that we go to war causes me to distrust Israel.
oh we have lots...don't you know Israel is sitting on stockpile of nukes past 3-4 decades...what is the urgency? is it because Israel fears it will have to lose it's biggest bully image or is it because IPAC convention fielded 13,000 folks who are working against America?
That'd be success.
=Israel has a history of not living up to its word in bargaining with U.S. presidents, particularly when it comes to keeping promises to "suspend" further Jewish settlements on disputed territory--the necessary first step in moving the peace process with the Palestinians forward.
=When American leaders complain about such inconstancy, Israeli leaders play their "trump card," AIPAC; and, then, it's usually the U.S. president (e.g., George H.W. Bush) who backs down.
President Obama is nervous, I suspect, because Netanyahu gave his word, in private, that
Israel would not take any military action againt Iran before the U.S. elections in November;
but, once again, an American president wonders if an Israeli prime minister will keep his word
or succumb to pressure from his extremist "base" at home.
Too many powerful interests want this to happen. But the PR campaign has to play out so the populace can be kept from an uprising and can be made to sit still while they are bled to pay for it.