Obama Threatens Military Option but “an Opportunity Still Remains for Diplomacy”

WASHINGTON – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is said to be satisfied by Barack Obama’s assurances about Iran because they are far-ranging and profound. Yesterday, speaking in front of AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee], the main Israeli organization in the U.S., the president made more than one promise. Obama reaffirmed his readiness to use force to defend Israel “and to defend the United States and its interests.” The president then threatened the military option to prevent Tehran from getting the Bomb. He extolled military cooperation with Jerusalem, calling it “unprecedented.” He recognized Israel’s right to defend itself “against any threat,” a statement that cheered Netanyahu more than any other. However, Obama did not waste the chance to confirm that “an opportunity still remains for diplomacy,” on the condition that Iran makes a real choice to negotiate. Then, referring to the mountain of comments about a possible Israeli blitz, Obama denounced “too much loose talk of war” that had led to an increase in oil prices – something which, he emphasized, favors the regime. Finally, Obama summed up his strategy by quoting the famous phrase of President Roosevelt, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”

It was a speech often interrupted by applause from an audience that paid attention to every detail and that included many interested guests, among them the president of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Gianfranco Fini, who met with Obama. The speech thus carried more weight than usual for the annual meeting at AIPAC. The meeting precedes today’s (crucial) encounter between Obama and Netanyahu concerning the Iran dossier, a talk which is accompanied by the fear that Israel may decide to attack anyway and also by the slightly uncomfortable relationship between the two leaders. Therefore the president – as Jerusalem has been requesting – began to draw some lines in the sand to make clear to Tehran that time is running out. Hence the dual reference, the first being the right of Israel to defend itself independently, and the second being the threat of U.S. military action that would, however, only be triggered as a last resort. This is not insignificant. These are cards that Netanyahu could play to Jerusalem saying: “Here, we got what we wanted. The raid can wait.” For the “optimists,” those who believe that there will not be an attack, this is a way to offer concrete alternatives to Israel, as they also think that Netanyahu may be bluffing. For the “pessimists,” on the contrary, a war scenario is very close. The issue is not about “if,” but just “when” – certainly within the next six months. Obama finds himself in the middle of the pendulum. He has to keep Jerusalem at bay, keeping in with the ally without being held to automatic responses. He has to deal with Iran, but not be taken as weak, preventing the mullahs from getting nuclear weapons and preventing the Iranian issue from disturbing the election campaign. The president cannot give the American pro-Israeli votes to the Republicans, nor can he be involved in a war that destabilizes an ailing economy. There are many (too many) eggs in one basket, which he has to look after before they crack.