How Much Will Obama's Second Term Cost Us?

Barack Obama vowed to inflict the heaviest sanctions after discovering a plan saying Iran was preparing to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to Washington, A’del Jubeir. He emphasized that the U.S. would put all options on the table in dealing with Tehran in order to make sure it pays the price.

The size of the price depends on the size of the choice that the U.S. (and Israel) will eventually make based on the options on the table. Will there be war? And will this war be limited to Iran, or will it include its Arab allies?

A month ago it seemed as if Washington and its allies were convinced to use economic sanctions of various kinds and dimensions. The sanctions would be just sufficient enough to carry the Islamic Republic into accepting conditions applied to its nuclear program. Washington wishes that the desired settlement could be expanded to address other contentious issues in the region such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine and Israel. Its other interests include oil, gas and protecting Arab countries allied to the United States.

After the outbreak of popular Arab uprisings the United States lost its allies, Presidents Zain al-A’abidine bin Ali and Hosni Mubarak; it seems as if Ali Abdullah Saleh will be next. Additionally, America has been incapable of removing Bashar Al-Assad as compensation for the loss of the previous mentioned presidents. It has reached the Obama administration (and by extension Israel) that the approach of adopting sanctions against countries deemed “rogue” has not borne fruit; thus there is a need to approach the problem practically and aggressively.

Israel has not yet been convinced of the usefulness of sanctions against Iran. It is always trying to persuade the Obama administration not to put down the option of force in the hopes of using it if Tehran didn’t respond to the requests of NATO. But Obama has chosen to stick to the invitation he made during his election campaign in 2008 to support diplomacy with Iran.

For its part, Tehran has sought to reassure Washington that it is not about to make nuclear weapons. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated this last month during his enticing participation in the General Assembly meeting at the United Nations. The U.S. wants to stop Iran from producing 20 percent enriched uranium on the condition that Iran may supply foreign countries with nuclear fuel, when it could produce all the fuel it needs in a research reactor in Tehran. They already have a reactor there that produces medical isotopes on which the lives of nearly 850,000 Iranians with cancer depend.

The tempting and showy Ahmadinejad will eventually face substantial challenges. Netanyahu has maintained the option of using force against Iran and railed against Obama’s policy of calling for diplomatic and political sanctions and blackmail. Obama’s policy achieves these aims through Congress and the International Quartet, in addition to refusing to stop settlement policy. He has disrupted his own initiative for resumed negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel based on 1967 borders.

The toughest challenges came from the U.S. Congress, which supports Israel’s position toward the Palestinians, Syria and Iran. But Congress has frustrated Obama’s goals to stimulate the economy. It is interesting that this coincided with the expansion of the Occupy Wall Street movement, which has grown through the inclusion of trade unions and student bodies.

Synchronizing with these developments were intense protest movements in Israel demanding resolution of the housing crisis and social injustice. A recent report was issued by the Trakhenberg Commission (comprised of Netanyahu experts) in favor of the demands of the protest movements. The report called for a reduction in security costs by billions of shekels in order to finance social benefits. This aroused the ire of military staff and the majority of ministers.

On top of that, confirmed by Obama, Netanyahu and his military commanders are planning to circumvent the Trakhenberg Report as well as the social movement, which is exacerbating the dangers resulting from the Arab Spring. Of special concern is the Egyptian uprising and its implications for Egypt’s peace agreement with Israel, on one hand. On the other hand is the likelihood of a nuclear Iran diverting tactical nuclear weapons to resistance organizations it’s allied with in order to justify a severe Israeli attack.

With regard to this dangerous development, Obama was quick to send his defense minister, Leon Panetta, to Tel Aviv to rein in the hawks. But Panetta was not introduced in a joint press conference with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, as someone curbed his appearance. Washington recently announced, “we are very concerned, and we will work together to take all necessary steps to prevent Iran from becoming a threat to the region.”

It is true that the American media interpreted Panetta’s visit as intending to tell Israel that it need not act without obtaining a U.S. green light. However, the Obama administration knows, as members of Congress know too, that Israel is capable of acting alone. This would occur especially if Israel decided to undertake an action related to strategic national security; it would ignore the United States and work without a prior green light. In the Kurtzer study, the former U.S. ambassadors to Tel Aviv and Cairo, respectively, made clear that Israel has taken dangerous political initiatives in the past. The U.S. Congress, then later the administration, approved covering up those responsible for enacting these initiatives. There was one time that this didn’t occur, during the administration of Dwight Eisenhower, when Israel, without consulting Washington, attacked Egypt in the context of the Suez war of 1956.

Eisenhower refused to cover up this event because Israel coordinated its attacks with Britain and France, and he was strong personally and publicly. Obama lacks the power of Eisenhower, as well as the popularity and political clout necessary to face the Zionist influence in Congress. In addition, he plans to run for a second term as president next year, and he knows that he will not be able to win unless he has the support of American Jews and the politicians loyal to them. Last but not least, he has made many concessions to Israel, regionally and internationally, since the first year of his election. All of this bears a question on the observer: What price will the Arabs pay as a result of the counter-attack recently begun by Washington in the region? The most prominent manifestation of violent reactions to Obama took the form of what Obama called the plan to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, with the intended goal of “putting people under the influence of the Iranian government.”

Obama could just tighten sanctions on Iran, or he could escalate the war, which would slowly deepen his internal contradictions throughout the presidential election season in the spring. Or Obama could tighten the economic and political embargo on Syria, forcing Assad to break its alliance with Iran. Or Assad could neutralize himself in case Israel were to carry out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities or industrial base. However, there are three things that are almost guaranteed to occur if Israel is so dead set and going to war with Iran:

First, Obama and Congress will cover Israel’s aggression and limitless power.

Second, the forces of Syria, the Arab Resistance in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq will fight at the regional level, a war to repel Iranian influence, based on previous alliances between them.

Third, that war would include Israel and the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, U.S. bases in the Gulf countries and perhaps also Turkey.

This avoids all allies choosing to remain neutral in this instance, and Israel could blame itself considering the adage: eat today or eat nothing.