Why Obama's Mideast Policy Will Work

I am sick and tired of hearing about how Obama is "not good for the Jews," or, as a friend of mine put it recently, "everyone who voted for him should be ashamed." If looking for solutions to Israel's toughest problems -- Iran and the Mideast peace process -- and trying to fix both is somehow bad for Israel, then I'm not sure what is good.

President George W. Bush placed Iran on the "axis of evil" with North Korea and Iraq, and then settled into an attempt to isolate Iran with tough rhetoric and mild sanctions. While he talked, Iran grew stronger in the region and continued building the potential for a nuclear force. It was the United States that was left without the intimate cooperation of its allies. Is this the policy the critics want President Barack Obama to pursue?

The president has wisely reversed course, pursuing an activist and even aggressive policy to stop the nuclear force by diplomacy if possible and by tough sanctions if necessary. He has worked hard to gain the confidence of allies, and has improved relations with Russia by altering Bush's policy of long-range missiles in Eastern Europe. Moscow is critical for making sanctions more effective. And when Tehran lied about its newly discovered nuclear facility, Obama deftly pounced, announcing the true nature of the Iranian installation and putting the Iranians on the proverbial "ropes" for the first time in years.

It did not take long for the Iranians to change their tune. At a meeting in Geneva on Oct. 1, the United States for the first time joined the other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (Russia, China, Britain and France) plus Germany in a long-planned meeting with a high-level Iranian delegation to discuss Iran's nuclear ambitions. The outcome was startling: Iran agreed to expanded inspections of its nuclear facilities, especially the new site. It also accepted the idea of sending most of its declared enriched uranium to Russia and France to be turned into nuclear fuel for a small Iranian reactor that produces medical isotopes. If the Iranian government was actually to make good on these promises, and assuming Iran does not have other undiscovered facilities and additional fuel, this would constitute a major achievement in at least delaying the Iranian development of nuclear weapons.

The president took no chances. He did not announce a major breakthrough, but instead called the talks "constructive" and warned Iran yet again that if it did not cooperate and did not fulfill its new commitments, tough sanctions (such as escalating limits on Iranian banks abroad or restricting the export of refined oil to Iran) would be instituted. These types of steps would seriously weaken the Iranian economy and would threaten Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's administration at a time when it is already under attack from those of its citizens who believe the Iranian president was not actually elected.

The critics are arguing that Iran cannot be trusted, and Obama agrees. Indeed, he is talking about the kinds of sanctions conservatives have advocated for years. Many of the critics simply want a military attack, because they say we can never be sure even if Iran were to fulfill its new commitments, which they doubt, that we would know whether Iran has more hidden nuclear sites. But that argument is contradictory. If we don't know where all the sites are, how do we bomb them? Besides, most experts, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, believe that a military attack, which Obama has not taken off the table, would not delay an Iranian nuclear force for more than three years and would come at a high cost to the United States.

Instead, Obama's actions have thrown the Iranians on the defensive, and demonstrated that he is capable of challenging them directly. Israel is quietly supporting his efforts. Only time can tell whether he will succeed, but he provides a refreshing hope for the first time that an innovative American policy has a chance of stalling the Iranian nuclear march. It is now the United States, not Iran, that is on the offensive, and it is noteworthy that the president has significant international support for his policies -- something George W. Bush found impossible to achieve.

It's the same story when we turn to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Bush was unable to advance the Arab-Israeli peace process during his presidency. Indeed, he made matters worse when, against Israeli and Palestinian advice, he insisted on the Palestinian election in January 2006, which resulted in a Hamas victory.

Obama immediately began to make clear that his administration would actively support Arab-Israeli peace when he announced on his first full day in office that former Sen. George Mitchell would be his Mideast envoy. The Obama team tried over the last eight months to get Israel to freeze settlements, and the Palestinians to enhance security and lessen incitement against Israel. For the first time, an American president demanded that the Arab states take confidence-building measures in response to Israel's concessions without waiting for final treaties to be signed. As Obama admitted when he met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, not all of these steps were taken, but there was progress on each of the issues nonetheless.

Freezing settlement construction does not impede Israeli security. The president was not calling for dismantling any settlements. He was only looking for an Israeli confidence-building measure, and, of course, settlement construction can be unfrozen if talks go poorly. At this time, when it is so critical to gain the involvement of Arab regimes in the confrontation with Iran, positive steps from Israel can enhance the atmosphere for cooperation against Tehran's interests and actions.

In any case, at the U.N. General Assembly, on the two key issues, Obama stood with Israel. He supported Netanyahu's idea of relaunching negotiations "without preconditions," and, even more important, he endorsed the idea of Israel as a "Jewish state," the Israeli prime minister's top priority in negotiations. Think about it: If Israel will be recognized as a Jewish state, the idea of settling massive numbers of Palestinian refugees in pre-1967 Israel is simply closed.

It is little wonder, then, that it was Netanyahu, not Abbas, who left satisfied with what had happened in New York. The Obama team's tough stand in pressuring the Palestinians into delaying for six months the U.N. Human Rights Council adoption of the dangerous Goldstone report is another indication of how close American and Israeli policy really is. From the Arab perspective, here was a president who held out a stronger extended hand than his recent predecessors, but who took just as sturdy a stand behind Israel as any of them, while demanding stronger concessions from Arab states during negotiations than any president in American history.

The facts speak for themselves. Anyone concerned with Israel's survival as a Jewish state should stop criticizing Obama's policies.

Steven L. Spiegel is a professor of political science and director of the Center for Middle East Development at UCLA and national scholar at Israel Policy Forum.

This column is cross-posted from Los Angeles Jewish Journal.

 

 

Comments

[S1m0n]

Iran's agreement to send fuel to russia makes no mention of quantities or ratios. Iran agreed to send "some" fuel to Russia, not "most". The difference is significant, and the misrepresentation unlikely to be accidental.

By exaggerating Iran's commitment today, we set in place a future conflict when Iran fulfills only the letter of it's commitment, while we accuse them of having broken a deal they never made.

[Salfana]

Both US and Isr. are a mirror image of themselves.

Both are in a perpetual state of war.

Both are in a constant panic state fueled by politician who have absolutely no ethics, then circling in a vicious cycle with a press that has abandon their mandate misleading and bending the thruth.

Both are merchants of death with a nuclear arsenals and want the all planet to disarm except themselves.

Both have double standard goes for war crimes, torture, renditions, targeted assassinations, flattened schools, hospitals sometimes entire villages, but will denounce any country that does the same.

Both have signed and ratified the Geneva Convention against torture, but refuse to be accountable for war crimes at the very top. A lot of countries do not respect the Geneva convention. I aggree, but these countries do not preach the world.

Both when confronted with proof or evidence will still deny it or create false evidence. They almost never repair the harm and destruction created leaving countries or territories in an absolute mess.

The tragedy is the public at large is not informed of the horror that is done in their names so they never learn of past mistakes. Just in the last couple of weeks we heard from both countries the trumpets of war against Iran and a complete false assessment by the press of what really went on.

In conclusion this could not happen without the complicity of the international community.

[Libertarian09]

Well said. The only thing I would add is that it also requires complicity of the common people in these two "democracies" who blindly look away as their governments commit atrocities in their name.

[alysheba 3]

Bravo. Very well said.

[Bariis]

Amazingly well-put!

[voxpop4]

To all you Israel bashers here..a little state mandated by the UN in 1947 a Jewish State along with an Arab State. What did the newly freed Arab States do after voting and losing..they went to war. These same Arab states were owned lock stock and barrel by Europe had the nerve to attack the New State of Israel! Guess what they lost..Little Israel kicked their Arab tuchus. NUf said..anything after that for peace was turned down by all Arabia. You Israel haters (anti-Zionists) are jealous of Israel's success. Not only victories in war, but economic fields and scientific gifts Israel contributed to the world. You would rather have Jews as victims"rather than victors. Remember this,Israel is the barometer of our free world. If Israel goes down ..God help us. Israel is the best ally we can have. USA and Israel have helped each other in so many ways it would be hard to list in here. Especially in warfare conditions. It's a two way street. And who the heck you think we USA are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan..its the same guys Israel fights everyday. And everyone seems to forget over a million Arabs live in Israel as citizens ..I dont see them running away to Cairo, or Damascus, or Gaza! After all, I suppose there is a good reason to hate Jews..we gave the world God, the Ten Commandments, Jesus, and lastly Allah. Without Judasim ..there is no Christianity or Islam!

[Libertarian09]

I do not hate Jews or Israel. What I hate are double standards and Israel and the US are the two biggest hypocrites in the world today. All we hear from Israel and America is their right to peace and security but they don't extend that "right" to others.

You state that the million Arabs living in Israel aren't in a big hurry to move to Gaza. Firstly, why should they leave their home and secondly why would they want to join such misery?

Is the God Jews brought us the one who commanded "Thou shall not kill".

[Hank007]

Obama's next move should be to annouce, that given that Israel claims to be our friend, in our time of economic crisis, Israel will begin to pay the US a sum of $5 billion a year for our continued protection, and that money is to be used to feed hungry American children here at home. After all, it's the right thing to do, right friend?

[WBMD]

Better still, keep your $3 billion, and stay out of the way, physically and politically, while Israel protects itself, as it always has.

[idest]

Riiiiiiiight. They don't get any military supplies from the USA. Sure.

[arvay]

"Think about it: If Israel will be recognized as a Jewish state, the idea of settling massive numbers of Palestinian refugees in pre-1967 Israel is simply closed."

And that's why no Palestinian leader who wants to live will accept the idea. Nor should he. It's an absurd, 19th century concept linking racial identity with national identity. Think Dritte Reich here.

[Hank007]

Actually, it's an absurd 20th century concept, linking religious identity with national identity. The South American Indians and western converts are no more Jewish or semitic than my cat, yet are accorded rights and citizenship, which are denied to Christians and Muslims who's families have been there thousands of years.

[WBMD]

If it is not absurd for 23 Arab Muslim countries, why is it absurd for Israel? If it is not absurd for Quebec, that gives immigration preference to French speakers, why is it absurd for Israel? If it is not absurd for Switzerland, why is it absurd for israel?

[idest]

Ah, I see. So its 26 wrongs that make a right. Gotcha.

[SadButWiser]

What if Israel does not want this to work? I think we seem to ignore this fact. The Israelis do not want to say it in public and as long as Hammas and Iran continue to verbally attack and threaten Israel or does not recognize Israel the right to exist, Israel thinks it has a legitimate excuse to reject any peace treaty with them.

When Fatah was the only power in the Palestinian territories, Israel asked Fatah to renounce violence, and recognized the right of Israel to exist before Israel conceded to anything. Fatah did that, what did the Palestinians get in return? More of their land stolen and a wall that splits many of their villages into halves.

The sad thing about all this, is that only in this conflict the victim has to concede first and more without an end in sight before the guilty one agrees.

There is a simple rule in life. No justice, no peace.

[WBMD]

In an interview with Palestinian TV on March 16, 2009, Muhammad Dahlan, a senior Palestinian leader is shown (and available on YouTube and all over the internet) as saying that the following:
"I want to say for the thousandth time, in my own name and in the name of all of my fellow members of the Fatah movement: We do not demand that the Hamas movement recognize Israel. On the contrary, we demand of the Hamas movement not to recognize Israel, because the Fatah movement does not recognize Israel even today."

It is only the Palestinian Authority government, Dahlan insisted, that must "recognize" Israel - not out of conviction or sincerity, but in order to receive the needed help of the international community. This help would not come, says Dahlan, if the PA government did not "recognize" Israel."

The PA also did not stop the violence, and, in fact, launched the second intifada. Nevertheless, the Palestinians have obtained control of large swaths of the West Bank, and over 90% of Palestinians live under the government and control of the Palestinian Authority. Inadequate as this may be, it is more than their own people ever gave them, and more than they ever had throughout history.

[Darwin256]

They had their homes in Palestine before they were expelled.

From your previous post apparently your solution to this "fuggetaboutit".

That attitude does not help Israel.

[BubbieSue]

Since as a Jew I question everything, I've often asked myself what difference it makes, after 60 plus years of "sturm unt drang" in the Levant Coast, commonly known today as Israel, known for 1900 prior years as Palestine, whether or not there's a Jewish state? What earthly difference does it make, apart from the chaos it's caused and the trouble it's constantly brewing for itself? In some ways, it exists for one reason: to be a safe haven for persecuted Jews, who live all over the world under all sorts of regimes, often unfriendly.

At the same time, ask yourself: Since there's a Catholic state (Vatican City, ruled by the Church) why should there not be a Jewish state, even though Catholics don't seem to need the haven as far as I'm aware?

I look for Mr. Obama to be a strong actor on the international scene, not taking too much nonsense from anybody if developments until now are any clue.

[Fein]

Your scholarly views must make you quite unpopular with your peers! I concur with you 100%.

[Hank007]

If Jews can make a state, then they should make it. Israel was largely founded by the US to expand our presence and agenda in the region. We now have better allies and ways to do that, and no longer need to dump more welfare into that money pit.

[WBMD]

You are so way off the mark, even the anti-Israelis on this site are laughing.

[rocketman69]

"Indeed, he made matters worse when, against Israeli and Palestinian advice, he insisted on the Palestinian election in January 2006, which resulted in a Hamas victory."

Damn that whole Democracy thing!

Maybe, Bush should have installed a ruthless dictator who would kowtow to the will of the U.S.

[Dengold]

Since I can't see any "promising" solution to the problem Iran poses, I have been willing to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt in his diplomatic efforts. Moreover, my "doubts" regarding the success of such diplomatic efforts have nothing at all to do with the President himself. The people i distrust in this effort are the Chinese, the Russians, and the French. President Obama gave the Russians a huge concession, and I can only assume he did so with the expectation of Russian cooperation against Iran. But our "concession" is visible and verifiable -- to everyone. The quid pro quo from Russia will only be visible to our intelligence gathering abilities (one notable exception will be how Russia votes in the Security Council but resolutions can be watered down even as they sound tough) and even more difficult to verify. Perhaps progress is being made, but perhaps Iran is merely playing us for the time needed to develop a nuclear weapon. I can't tell, nor do I think this writer can.

[as1504]

Why does our government persist in conflating our national security with Israel's? Our credibility declines every time Israel commits an outrageous attack and we defend it. It makes the world hate us. I want our government to stand for the American people. Israel is not the 51st state. It does not give us money, we give it money. They run our foreign policy. I am sick of it. Regardless of how one feels about Israel, it is armed to the teeth and if it attacks another nation, that nation has the right to strike back with extreme prejudice. We certainly did so when we invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for 9/11. Why should Iran not have that right? Why should we attack Iran on behalf of Israel? Let Israel deal with its own problems. We should back off and treat Israel neutrally.

[WBMD]

How about if another nation attacks Israel (as Lebanon did in 2006, and the Palestinians have over the last 8 years,) or if it says it is going to attack Israel, and is arming itself towards that goal? Is it OK for Israel to defend itself?

If we leave Israel twisting in the wind, alone, will that be good for the U.S.? Will other countries believe us in the future, when we say " Trust us!"?

[LiberalProfessor]

The US press is the ONLY press that reported Lebanaon attacked Israel in 06. Everywhere else across the world it was Israel that had a cross-border raid into Lebanon.

But what are facts when Israel is involved?

[Thelonius]

Lebanon did not attack Israel in 2006. Members of the Hezbollah resistance slipped over the border and abducted two Israeli soldiers. Pursuing Israeli soldiers crossed into Lebanon and were killed by a land mine. The abductions were prompted by Israel's repeated violations of the truce, e.g. ongoing violations of Lebanon's airspace and its continued occupation of Lebanon's Shebaa Farms. To state the obvious, Israel's reaction was utterly disproportionate - the slaughter of nearly 1,200 Lebanese, mostly civilians, infrastructure destroyed etc. In the end, a bad decision by both parties. Nonetheless, a pivotal event as Israel was defeated by Hezbollah and forced to withdraw from Lebanon for the second time.

[danielet]

Israel is the only modern nation that can help its Arab cousins do what Bush tried to do with JDAM bombs: modernize the Middle East. As oil ceases to be our main fuel because of global warming, Arabs will suffer terribly. Only Nobel Prize winning Israeli sci/tech-ers can modernize them out of suicidal Jihad out of despair. If Iran gets nukes, Israel can serve as Arabs' nuclear deterrent shield for they can't afford the cost of going nuclear. Arabs&Jews have common roots so they can best understand eachother as the Mizrahis (Arab Jews) dominate Israel to achive the Zionist Founding Fathers' dream: "Israel as a light onto the [Arab] nations." Most young Arabs and Israeli sabras I know dream of the region like an olive three: firmly nurtured on Semitic roots with many branches that draw cultural stability from common trunk. Netayahu's efforts to economically integrate Palestinians in the Israeli economy could well be a model of what integrating Israel into the region can mean for Arabs. But Israelis must temper their fear and dampen the fragmentary tendencies of the Haredi. There are many level headed people on both sides. No Arab I know is anti-Semitic; all dream of nations for their kids that look modern and democratic like Israel. Don't be blinded by current psychotic Israeli/HAMAS paroxysmal tit-for-tat of fear and hate. Israel may yet prove to be America's best investment to Mideast modernization.

[Igor Dashevskiy]

Your ignorance rather striking, are you sure you reading the right news? Israel is THE ONLY country witch unconditionally supports America in the world especially in Middle East. If it doesn’t counts than...

[Darwin256]

How long would that support last if the money were withdrawn.

[alysheba 3]

And you forgot, spies on the US and sells that information to the Russians during the Cold War.

Let's make sure that all the information is out there.

[Steve Cusick]

I have a novel idea for peace. Let's have the Israelies put into official policy, the truth; that no G-d actually picked them as chosen people, that no G-d gave them any land and that they are the same humble humans as everyone else in the world. We'll give them a couple of weeks to let that sink in, then we can start talking peace.

[WBMD]

The Israelis claim their right to a homeland based on legality, history, and morality, not God. You have no concept of what the term "Chosen people" means, or maybe you do, and intentionally twist it. The Jewish religion teaches that God chose the Children of Israel as the people to whom He would hand down His laws and Commandments. They were chosen to carry out those Commandments, and in so doing, be a "light unto the Nations". It is certainly a work in progress, but has nothing to do with being better, or superior, or "un-humble".

[Ganapati]

The argument of legality, history and morality go down the toilet the minute one considers what Israel keeps doing to Palestinians and how it negates their right to have what Israel claims for itself. If that is not a sign of moral (and I imagine ethnic) superiority over people who were in that territory at least at the same time as jews (if not way before) I don't know what it is.
I will support Israel the day they behave like what they claim to be and stop using their historical suffering as justification to make others suffer.

[biwee]

As an American, I am concerned with America's survival FIRST!!

[SimonNZ]

Why is the Goldstone report "dangerous"? Is it because it told the truth?

[discussant]

"The critics are arguing that Iran cannot be trusted, and Obama agrees. Indeed, he is talking about the kinds of sanctions conservatives have advocated for years. Many of the critics simply want a military attack, because they say we can never be sure even if Iran were to fulfill its new commitments, which they doubt, that we would know whether Iran has more hidden nuclear sites. But that argument is contradictory. If we don't know where all the sites are, how do we bomb them? Besides, most experts, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, believe that a military attack, which Obama has not taken off the table, would not delay an Iranian nuclear force for more than three years and would come at a high cost to the United States."
I am replying to the above quote. For this kind of conjecture, accusing only one side, Iran is not fair. Israel also should come to the equation. I suggest that you substitue Iran by Israel, and read it again. Why not-- they are also a guilty party perpetrating havoc, that is unexonerable! Then we will understand what is balanced and fair reporting, and balanced and fair diplomacy, and balanced and fair global community, which we are the de facto head of.
Know fairness, know peace. No fairness, no peace.

[CommonSenseBob]

It is important to hear all sides of a story. Larry Derfner of the Jerusalem Post is worth reading, if not only because he asks difficult questions, such as Steven L. Spiegel does, but also raises issues that support common sense.

We all know the issues, and are inundated with opinion, it's refreshing to read today's article.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1253627550527&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[SimonNZ]

Great article. It shows there is sensible progressive thinking in Israel. It's a real shame you don't hear it very often over the right-wing bluster and warmongering.

[Darwin256]

Tragically, I think he is the token liberal there,