Obama’s Israel Problem

For the Obama administration’s policy towards the Middle East, the development of the situation in Iran is a classic case of “crisis” – there is both danger and opportunities in it.

The danger comes mainly from inside the U.S.: from the American right-wing, especially the neoconservatives who, left with only a little dying breath at first, capitalized on the situation. Besides demonizing the Iranian regime, the neoconservatives attacked Obama’s “peaceful diplomacy” as being weak and powerless, one that did not dare to express support for the “color revolutions.”

Those with some knowledge of history will know that with “histories” such as the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) planning to overthrow the democratically-elected Iranian government in 1953, as well as all the while supporting the Pahlavi dynasty’s regime, Washington’s open involvement in the Iranian presidential election dispute will only strengthen Iran’s right-wing conservative power. This could also perhaps be the main intent behind the Republican’s enormous exaggeration of the “Support Iranian Democrats” campaign and, through this, destroy the Obama administration’s diplomatic plans of dealing with Iran’s nuclear plans through peaceful means.

On the other hand, since the Islamic revolution, Iran’s influence in the Persian Gulf and the Greater Middle East has been on the rise. In addition to the Shiite’s revival, another important factor is the appeal of the “Islamic democracy” card. Iran is fully supporting two overseas Islamic organizations – the Shiite group Hezabollah in Lebanon and the Sunnis’ Hamas in Palestine. Both organizations are actively fighting for popular opinion and participating in democratic elections, using these as effective political means. Now, Iran itself has fallen into electoral turmoil and, especially since the opposition is accusing the government of electoral fraud, this has apparently hurt Iran’s moral authority and influence in the Greater Middle East.

Internal crisis has weakened Iran’s soft power

Iran’s “soft power” towards the outside world has been diminished due to internal crises, and Washington’s diplomatic space in the Middle East has naturally increased accordingly. Iran’s electoral controversy comes at a time when the Obama administration is “rectifying” the Bush administration’s errors on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it has given the White House additional diplomatic opportunities.

Those who can see clearly should know that the key to resolving the conflicts in the Middle East is for Israel, which has the strategic upper hand in military matters, to make substantial concessions. Unless Iran and the Arab nations successfully develop their nuclear weapons, and shift the military balance in the Middle East, Israel’s concessions can only come through pressure from Washington. Washington’s policy towards the Middle East, however, is intertwined with the powerful Jewish lobby, and thus the preceding U.S. administrations were full of worries when exerting pressure on Israel.

Looking back at Bill Clinton and George Bush, Jr., they started pushing for Israeli-Palestinian talks only when they did not have to worry about serving a consecutive term anymore. Even so, the two presidents did not pressure Israel too much. In recent history, the U.S. president who truly exerted strong diplomatic pressure on Israel was George Bush, Sr. His objective was to establish a “united battlefront” during the first Gulf War. Since the beginning of the Israeli-Palestinian war in 1967, this was also the only time when Washington threatened to withhold American support, which temporarily restricted Israel’s expansion of Jewish settlements on Palestinian territory. The significance was that Bush Sr. failed to be elected to a consecutive term, even after having attained great popularity for his victory in the Gulf War.

Since taking office, Obama has immediately requested Israel to fully suspend its expansion of Jewish settlements on the West Bank and, with unprecedented diplomatic pressure, forced Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept the “two-state solution” in name. And thus, a new phenomenon has arisen from Washington’s policy towards the Middle East.

One reason why Obama is not afraid of following in Bush Sr.’s footsteps is his current strength in internal affairs and his outstanding political skill, especially in nominating the first Latin American Supreme Court chief justice, which more or less lays the foundation for his being elected for a consecutive term.

Obama needs a peaceful international environment

More importantly, like Deng Xiaoping in the past, Obama needs a peaceful international environment in order to realize his ambitions of reforming internal affairs. Another September 11th terrorist attack is the greatest threat to Obama and the Democrats, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the biggest publicity handle for the Islamic extremists.

Another issue is the division among American Jews. The Bush administration’s “Conservative Revolution” and anti-elitism had offended a great number of intellectuals, most of whom are liberals, in addition to the continually unpopular neoconservatives.

What Obama is facing, however, is Israel’s inclination to the right. For over 40 years, 300,000 Jewish colonizers have taken 35 percent of Palestinian territory on the West Bank, but Nethanyahu still insists that the Obama administration demand Israel to freeze their settlements.

More important is the fact that though Nethanyahu has accepted the “two-state solution” on the surface, he put forth many prerequisites, which was in fact a return to the “one-and-a-half state solution” that caused the complete failure of the Oslo Peace Accords. It means that Palestine would be a completely Israeli-controlled “child regime” without its own weapons, air space and sea space.

Nethanyahu’s boldness in openly making the call with the White House on key issues such as “freezing” the settlements and the “two-state solution” showed that Israel knows that however great the pressure the Obama administration exerts on them, it will not be able to supersede the “bottomline” of the American Jews not allowing Israel’s “safe existence” to be threatened. From this angle, Washington’s current diplomatic opportunity may inevitably be irrevocably lost.