“Don’t Panic” -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
By Barry Rubin
I’m
going to try to analyze what Israeli strategy might look like if Obama
were to be reelected. I don’t want to write a partisan piece --
predicting every type of the most horrible disaster and open hatred from
the White House -- but a serious analytical effort. This involves
speculation, but policymakers have to develop the most likely scenarios
in order to plan ahead.
Let
me start, though, with a joke. An asteroid hits the ocean, producing a
giant tidal wave so powerful that within an hour all land will be
covered by water. Television networks put on a variety of politicians,
alleged wise people, and religious figures to speak with the doomed
population. The rabbi among them explains: “All I can say is that you
have one hour to learn to breathe underwater.”
That
is Israel’s mission. To survive a second Obama term brought on it by
the American -- including a large majority of American Jewish -- voters.
The
first thing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does is send a warm
message of congratulations to the reelected president. He is going to be
president for four years, like it or not, and Israeli leaders will work
hard to minimize any antagonism. At least with Netanyahu strongly
entrenched, Obama will understand that he cannot subvert the Israeli
government to get some other prime minister more to his liking (i.e.,
someone ready to make unilateral concessions in exchange for getting
nothing in return).
So with that basis established, here's Israel’s Obama problem divided into four issues:
1. Maintaining bilateral relations
Israel’s
government needs to ensure the continuation of U.S. aid, including
assistance for anti-missile systems; intelligence sharing; and other
forms of cooperation. Unless Obama decides to go all-out on an
anti-Israel vendetta, he is likely to see this issue as a low-priority
one. All he has to do is nothing.
Here,
Israel’s contacts with Congress and the Defense Department will be
critical. The Democrats in Congress will have to show whether they still
do actually support Israel -- and a majority of them do -- by joining
with the Republicans in backing continued aid and cooperation. The
Defense Department has generally good relations with Israel and also
benefits from Israel’s technological advances.
There
are real prospects for maintaining bilateral relations on their current
level. Obama can be expected to mistreat Netanyahu and to say things
that totally misunderstand Israel and insult its interests, but when you
are a country of 7.5 million allied with a superpower, your leaders
have to take such behavior, as long as it remains verbal.
2. Keep Obama from damaging Israel’s situation in regard to the Palestinians
Obama
will have to decide whether to put an emphasis on the
Israel-Palestinian “peace process,” meaning pressure on Israel to make
concessions while the Palestinian Authority (PA) doesn’t keep its
commitments and makes no compromises. He might decide to do so based on
his ideological predispositions.
Yet
there is some evidence that Obama won’t behave this way. His failure on
peacemaking is the only such defeat he has ever acknowledged. He knows
it is hard and the administration almost certainly knows -- though it
will never admit it publicly -- that what Mitt Romney said was right.
The PA doesn’t want to make a peace deal with Israel.
Moreover,
there have been interesting developments regarding the main strategic
motive for the idea that a peace deal is necessary as soon as possible
and requires pressure on Israel. This factor is called “linkage” -- the
concept that bashing Israel and getting the Palestinians a state as soon
as possible will solve all of America’s other problems in the Middle
East. Once this is accomplished, Muslims and Arabs will love the United
States and -- more importantly in one man’s mind -- Obama.
What’s
important here is not just that linkage doesn’t work, but that this
reality has never before been so obvious. With anti-Americanism and
crisis coming from all directions -- Iran, Syria, Egypt, Libya, and so
on -- will Obama see bashing Israel as a panacea?
There’s
no question that during his first term, especially the first two years
or so, Obama really believed this and tried very ineptly to institute
such a strategy. Yet he knows it didn’t work. At any rate, if faced with
such a situation, the Israeli government is quite capable of offering
cooperation, giving on relatively unimportant issues, stalling for time,
and essentially calling the PA’s bluff. In the end, nothing will
happen.
The
dangers of an Obama second term certainly exist regarding the first two
points, but it is the second pair of issues that are really and truly
dangerous.
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
Please be subscriber 30,037 (among about 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------
3.
How would Obama handle the regional Arab situation and threats from
revolutionary Islamist forces that he has helped to unleash and even to
put into power?
In my view, the number one danger Israel faces is not Iran, but Egypt.
A
radical regime now exists in Cairo that wants to wipe Israel off the
map; is willing to help Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, on that
project; and might get directly involved itself.
During
Obama’s second term, Israel is likely to face sporadic attacks from the
Gaza Strip that periodically it will have to retaliate against. Obama
will remain aloof on this problem, which isn’t good but is manageable.
The real difficulty is whether Hamas launches an all-out attack as it
did in late 2008.
But
this time it would have some level of Egyptian support. Such help could
take many forms: Hamas headquarters, weapons storehouses, and other
facilities being moved onto Egyptian territory so that Israel cannot
touch them; a massive flow of arms, weapons, and money across the border
financed in part by the ruling Muslim Brotherhood; an influx of
Egyptian volunteers to fight alongside Hamas, whose death would lead to
howls of revenge in Egypt; and other such measures.
Beyond
this, Egypt could escalate into allowing -- even if denying
responsibility -- cross-border terrorist attacks on Israel. Attempted
cross-border attacks are already routine and the Egyptian government
does nothing to suppress the groups involved. It is not inconceivable
that from the mass demands of Salafist and Muslim Brotherhood forces, by
the revolutionary enthusiasm of the regime, and by ideological
hysteria, Egypt could end up in a war with Israel. That might happen if
it proved necessary to send Israeli military forces into the Gaza Strip,
as happened in 2009.
The
Egyptian military is no longer a bulwark against this because its
leadership has been dismantled, a collapse partly due to Obama’s policy.
Israel
cannot depend on the United States to press sufficiently hard for
enforcement of the treaty or to deter Egypt. As a result, Israel will
have to be ready to fight such a smaller or bigger war by itself. If a
Muslim Brotherhood-dominated regime were to be in power in Syria, it
would join in. The only bright spot is that other Arab countries would
stand aside. Perhaps even Hezbollah might content itself with the firing
of some symbolic rockets rather than have Lebanon flattened in a “Sunni
war.”
In
fact, for the first time in almost forty years, under Obama Israel
could not depend on U.S. support or protection against any Arab threat
or aggression. Israel would just have to take care of itself. But the
key issue: would Obama send arms -- perhaps pressed by Congress and
public opinion even if he didn’t face election -- or would he play
neutral and just do nothing while he pursued useless diplomatic efforts?
4. Iran
Briefly,
there is no way that Obama would attack Iran or support an Israeli
attack no matter what Tehran does. American sanction efforts would
continue hand in hand with Iran going full speed ahead on obtaining
nuclear weapons. Israel would still attack Iranian facilities if this
were deemed necessary for national survival, but the bar on what
constituted acceptable reasons for attacking would be raised.
Israel
could also not depend on U.S. support in the aftermath. On the
contrary, Obama could be outraged and blame Israel for terror attacks on
Americans, the spiraling cost of oil, and other resulting problems.
After all, he doesn’t face reelection -- he can tame the pro-Israel
Democrats with a few crumbs, and he wouldn’t care what the public
opinion polls said.
If necessary, Israel would have to take that risk. But how does one define “necessary”?
So
Obama’s reelection would be a serious problem for Israel, not a
catastrophe or an end to the state. But for the first time in four
decades, every Israeli leader would understand that the country could
not depend on the United States as a protector. In fact, the Obama
administration could be counted on to make things worse.
WEEKEND Reading
--
Reader Question of the Day: What does Obama want? Does he want radical
Islamist regimes dominating the region? Are his advisors that radical?
Response: As
I have tried to explain repeatedly, the Obama administration has the
following view: al-Qaeda is evil and a terrible threat and must be wiped
out. All other Islamists can be won over if the U.S. shows it is not
their enemy. After all, they are not attacking the United States
directly. Therefore, if the U.S. is good to them, respectful toward
Islam, and shows it isn't afraid of their taking power, they will
understand this and their hostility will be reduced. Being in power will
moderate them. The main point of origin of this within government was
the CIA and, of course, Obama and his appointees in the White House.
There are some at the State Department who back this idea, but the
institution generally has opposed it. Of course, these people follow
orders and after a while start to believe what they are saying.
-- Ridiculous apologist award goes to Michael Birnbaum of the Washington Post:
Top Brotherhood officials say they are maturing as they grow into their new role as Egypt’s dominant political power under Morsi, a former head of the group’s political wing. But they say they also find themselves caught between the moderating force of office and a sharp tug toward religious and social conservatism from Islamist groups that sparked the protests at the U.S. Embassy here.
Interpretation:
The Brotherhood really wants to be moderate and being in office is
making them moderate, but those bad extremists just won't let them be
moderate! Solution: Give billions of dollars and more U.S. concessions;
don't complain and support us.
No comments:
Post a Comment