Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, was ousted Monday -- not a huge event in itself, but perhaps another reminder that Iran's self-aggrandizement is containable because Iranian foreign policy is, to a large extent, self-jamming. The problem, however, is that the keystone of containment -- American power -- is also self-jamming in ways indicated by the Obama administration's acknowledgment that it is giving up its two-year campaign for a freeze on Israeli construction of settlements in occupied territory. The outcome of the contest in the Middle East may depend on who -- Iran or America -- can be first to figure out how to stop jamming themselves.
Iran's difficulties were on display earlier this month when Mottaki traveled to Bahrain for a major conference of foreign ministers from Gulf Arab states and outside powers organized by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Mottaki might have done his country some good by sitting respectfully through a speech in which Hillary Clinton again held out the olive branch, though the American Secretary of State felt rebuffed when she tried, after her speech, to greet him directly.
More seriously problematic was Mottaki's own speech the next day, which underscored how seriously out of sync Iran's foreign policies are with the goals of its Arab neighbors. Mottaki claimed that international opposition to Iran's nuclear program constituted a kind of "scientific apartheid" -- yet the WikiLeaks documents contained abundant evidence that Arab leaders want the program stopped, by peaceful means if possible, through violence if necessary. Mottaki claimed that the presence of outside powers -- read, the United States -- was the main source of Middle East instability, yet most states in the region have established tighter military relations with Washington and show no signs of wanting to end them.
And Mottaki repeated the Iranian regime's mantra that Israel, the "Zionist regime," constitutes a "fake and illegitimate" implant in the Arab world and, thus, "the main security threat in this region." Yet just moments earlier Jordan's King Abdullah had emphasized in the strongest possible terms the readiness of Arab states to make permanent peace with the Israelis, a sentiment repeated by other Arabs throughout the day.
The Arabs added, of course, that a viable Palestinian state is prerequisite for that Arab-Israeli peace -- and it is precisely here that US policy goals have been so bitterly frustrated, to the undoubted satisfaction of Tehran. Israel's settlement activities are hardly the only obstacle to those goals, but they are important, because the recurring spectacle of new Israeli buildings is corrosive to Palestinian confidence in a negotiated settlement. They are, consequently, deeply empowering both to Palestinian radicals and to Iran's virulent rejectionists.
At its outset the Obama administration made clear that it wanted, in Secretary Clinton's words, "to see a stop to settlements -- not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth' exceptions." President Obama himself reiterated this call in his Cairo speech of June 4, 2009. The administration erred tactically in making a demand without knowing what Jerusalem's answer would be, and for not having a fallback in case the answer was "no." The administration also looked desperate and weak when it started offering bribes -- in the form of military equipment and guaranteed UN support -- in exchange for Jerusalem's temporary extension of a merely partial freeze. (If Israel needs weapons for its security -- which it does -- it will only breed future misunderstandings to couch them as a quid pro quo.) Thankfully, the administration came to its senses last week and ended that humiliating effort.
But the problem has not gone away, and it is a delusion to pretend that it won't seriously undermine US efforts to counter a nuclear-emboldened Iran. The linkage between the two is not mechanical or direct, but it is real.
First, it is simply difficult for the United States to make headway on its strategic goals against a tide of Arab ill will. The Palestinians' plight is a powerful emotive issue across the Arab world, and American responsibility for its Israeli ally is simply assumed.
Second, the prestige and regional influence that Iran derives from its virulent rejection of Israel is, to some significant degree, a function of Israel's treatment of Palestinians. The logic of this argument can be found in the question: if Iran did not have the emotive issue of Israel-Palestine, what appeal would it have in the Arab world? The answer is not nothing -- it would still have strong ties with Hezbollah in Lebanon and it would continue to promote Shi'a grievances in Sunni-dominated states. But the Israel-Palestine conflict is key for Iran's bid to win hearts and minds on the Arab street.
To be sure, Arab leaders -- especially of the Gulf states closest to Iran -- will remain fearful of Iran and dependent on American protection regardless of what happens in Palestine. But their capacity to actively contribute to an American-led coalition has to be complicated by public opinion.
It is, in any event, a deep and abiding American moral interest to support an Israeli state that is secure, democratic, and Jewish, and this interest -- shared, obviously, by Israel itself -- is threatened as the viability of a two-state solution slips away. There are times, unfortunately, when America's moral interests and strategic needs diverge. This is not one of them.
Dana H. Allin is Senior Fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. Steven Simon, a former Senior Director in the Clinton administration's National Security Council, is Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. They the authors of The Sixth Crisis: Iran, Israel, America, and the Rumors of War
James Zogby: Lebanon: Finding Consensus Without the Factions
Ben S. Cohen: The PA's Choice: Palestinian State or Palestinian Cause
Of the original British Mandate, approximately 75% was given to the Hashemites of Hijaz, Saudi Arabia, leaving approximately 10,000 square miles to be shared by the Jews and the Palestinians. No wonder they are still fighting sixty two years after the State of Israel was declared!
There can be no solution without including the land now known as Jordan in the overall equation.
The peace agreement would guarantee religious freedom for all, including access to all religious sites, equitable sharing of all common resources (water, gas, etc), and provide for reparations for all Palestinians who immigrate to the new Palestine. Ideally, Israel and Palestine would establish a “common market” which would become an economic power in the region.
Now is the time to act, because we are on the brink of another war, which likely will involve nuclear weapons and devastating destruction. Such an agreement will bring security to the Middle East, the United States and the rest of the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcL31YqZaQQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transjordan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917
I am not a politician, a professor, or an author. I am a simple Palestinian American with no political affiliations, who wants to see a better life for the Palestinians, the Israelis, and all those adversely affected by the problems of the Middle East.
I realize that Jordan is an ally of the United States, but it is a smoldering coal about to burst into flame. Rename it Palestine, encourage investment, and relocate the refugees, and it would become a stable state more than willing to adopt the ideals of the western world. I am determined to broadcast these proposals far and wide, and to follow them through to realization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes–Picot_Agreement
The former Soviet Union is far larger, has a (supposedly) more poisonous ideology, and can easily match NATO in terms of military superiority. Yet we have detente. Successive US administrations did not shy away talking and negotiating.
This is beyond assumption, it is absolutely confirmed by the continuing US blind eye support of Israel.
If the US could end all double standards it would go a long way towards restoring US credibility.
We studied Mathematical Statistics, our professor used to say: when you are using if and when check the variables in your predicate are independent otherwise you end up with false results if they are not independent.
So to what degree US is dependent of Israel politics and to what degree Israel is dependent of US politics and is there any chance that US cannot have double standards when it comes to Israel.
Israel has been shown to present the tail in a dog-tail relation. I think the relationship is the opposite or at least the two are the lower and upper jaws of the same shark. With other western countries involving in protecting Israel, controlled by Israel to some degree and sometimes even affraid of Israel nukes, the relationships are much more complex.
The rest of the world have not this type of dangerous dependence to Israel and the opening will come from UN general assembly or other international organizations.
Just like the case of South Africa, the Aparthid regime will be condemned by the world opinion first and US will be force to take correct positions much later.
Either way, both of these two need to get a grip on reality; as it exists, the relationship is a threat to everybody.
Can the world force Israel to undergo IAEA inspections and force it into a 2010 Middle East Nuclear Free Zone in order that other Middle Eastern countries don't have to go nuclear to protect themselves against attack by Israel or her proxy Israel Lobby-controlled US?
What about Palestine? - will forced imposition of a resolution be necessary for Israel or will the job have to be accomplished by BDS campaigns against the intransigent Apartheid state?
Israel must be contained on both issues of it's bellicosity and jealously towards Iran as well as it's continuing ethnic cleansing in Palestine.
There's obviously no one home in Israel who can listen to reason or negotiations which Israelis consider to be existential threats to stopping their belligerance and ethnic cleansing
Thank you
So un-Iranian that it stinks.
"I can tell that most of the ones leaving comments here are either agents from Iran's IR cyber army or pro-IR islamist agents using American names for deception or misguided naiive American and European liberals."
So America do not have Liberals and Europe do not have navies?
Anyway, can we have some of your "deep insights" instead of your false accusations, please?
Also, Iran didn't pick this fight. During the Clinton/Khatami era, we had dialogue of civilizations happening, and hamas was getting a symbolic $3 million per year from Iranian government. With Bush, policy changed. Iran helped US in Afghanistan and got membership in axis of evil, deal of the century was offered in 2003, Iran was told "we don't negotiate with evil", nuclear program was suspended for 2 years, west wanted indefinite suspension and for Iran to give up its rights under NPT, and Iraq was invaded under false pretences.
So, I suggest, instead of accusing other Iranians on this board of being IRI agents, I would take a good look at yourself in the mirror and question your own loyalty to MEK, because to me, that's what you sound like.
Saudi Arabia is a monarchy where no leader has ever been chosen in an election, rigged or otherwise. Same for Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain - the list is endless. Egypt is a puppet regime that has been upheld by the U.S. for no reason other than the fact that Mubarrak says "how high" when he's told to jump. None of the leaders of these countries are interested in anything except maintaining their tyranny in their own countries.
The only problem with Iran is that years of American operations have not so much as given America a foothold in the country to affect it the way it wishes.
We ignore Saudi Arabia because they fund presidential libraries; but as Wikileaks pointed out, the Saudis are the main funders of terrorism to AQ - not Iran. But that gets ignored because it doesn't fit the narrative.
Iran isn't the problem; it never has been.
Even A-Q fractions incuding Taliban received funding from Iran. Their goal is to prevent democracy in Iraq, Afganistan and the rest of the region
Only regime change in Iran can bring peace to the region, time to support the Iranian people is now before its too late.
US had soldiers in Lebanon helping Israel occupation in Lebanon, what Lebanese resistance decide to do is not a responsibility of Iran.
Iran is helping the resistance of Lebanese people and as long as Israel is occupying an inch of Lebanese territories it is justified to help oppressed to fight the oppressor.
Your second accusation is even more baseless than the first one.
Talibans had killed all the Iranians embassy personnel in Afghanistan and Iran was ready to go in with her military for a revenge before US invasion.
Also US public records show that Iran had helped US to defeat Talibans in the first few months of operation, since Iran hated Talibans and Al-Qaeda and wanted to get rid of them.
Unfortunately, there is a sword of Damocles that hangs over virtually every American elected official, political appointee, diplomat and media personality that is known, alternately, as AIPAC or the Israeli Lobby.
Everybody knows about this but it cannot be mentioned in polite D.C. society for fear that the dreaded "anti-s------" label, or Mr. Foxman's ethnocentric diatribes, will deal a death blow to aspiring careerists.
Thus, with regards to anything touching upon Israel- however tangential or remote, American politicians have become parrots- and Polly's crackers come in the form of campaign cash and warm endorsements from the aforementioned groups.
Iran's nuclear program is, to all accounts, for peaceful civilian purposes; it's foreign policy is merely the aspiration to regional prominence of a great nation which - in culture, history, creativity, demographics and productive potential- dwarfs its rogue would be adversary.
The Palestinian conflict is a matter which could be resolved by operating on principles involving simple justice, equity and reciprocity- terms which, it would appear words have no place in the Likud lexicon.
America is doomed to see its role diminish in the Middle East until it shakes the albatross from around its neck and assumes, once again, a policy of sanity and true pursuit of its own national interests.
A regional alliance between Iran, Turkey, Armenia, and Pakistan, with friendly engagement by the US would be invaluable strategically and commercially.
But no- our Congress' and President's hands are tied by AIPAC, the ADL, and a few more groups of even more dubitable character. The interests of the hundreds of millions are held hostage to the few millions.
In the scenario of Israel Palestine, granting freedom to the Palestinians would be containing Israel. Besides some minor funding to Palestine Iran really doesn't have anything to do with the situation at all