Explaining Obama’s shift on Israel
His Mideast visit suggests the U.S. president is beginning to see the folly in his policy for the region, writes BARRY RUBIN.
Never before President Barack Obama’s visit to Israel has any president bestowed so much flattery on another country. Obama said the alliance was “eternal.” He added that it was no accident that Israel was the first foreign visit he made in his second term. He pointed to parallels between the two countries, even paraphrasing (the research work of a staffer, of course) Israel’s national anthem.
More than ever before, Obama showed an understanding of Israel’s roots and the reasons for its existence. Clearly, he has learned a fair amount since he took office but his internal development is not sufficient by a long shot to explain what has happened.
It is not difficult to explain this apparent total turnaround, yet the development has been widely misunderstood. Those who dislike Obama see it as camouflage, an effort to soften up Israel with shows of friendship before applying pressure in an attempt to revive the dead “peace process.” Those who like Obama perceive this visit as merely a continuation of his previous policy, a mere expression of what he’s thought all along.
In fact, though, it is a real shift in response to experience, events and Obama’s strategic needs. First, he has vividly seen that there is not going to be any real progress in Israel-Palestinian negotiations, not only due to — in Obama’s mind — Israeli policy but due to the lack of cooperation from the Palestinian Authority and the Arab states.
While his trip included a short visit with the Palestinian Authority leadership, that group is now following a strategy of trying to expand UN General Assembly designation as a nonmember state into some de facto independence.
This strategy does not require any negotiations with Israel or any desire to co-operate with Obama on renewing the “peace process.”
In his speech to Palestinian Authority leaders in Ramallah, Obama continued this theme. While saying that “we cannot give up on the search for peace, no matter how hard it is,” Obama made it clear that he thinks the two sides are not ready for a negotiated deal due to “old habits” and “old arguments.”
Second, support for Israel within the United States is as high as or even higher than it has ever been. Except among the left wing — whose noisiness should not be mistaken for breadth of support — the American public and Congress, including those in Obama’s own Democratic Party, remain supportive. Obama is not running for reelection but he still needs political capital for his domestic program and other policies.
Third, Obama’s own needs and priorities in the Middle East require Israeli co-operation and risks of a different sort. The timing and direction of his trip openly relate to those issues.
The main question is that of Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons. Obama will spend much of this year in still another attempt to get a deal with Tehran. Despite failed diplomacy in that direction during his first four years, Obama hopes that tough sanctions will encourage the Islamist regime to make concessions.
Yet each day brings Iran closer to getting nuclear weapons. Publicly, Obama has stated that all options are on the table and that if the Islamist government does not agree to stop the program, some kind of attack on its nuclear facilities is possible. Obama wants to avoid such a confrontation even if the alternative is Iranian success, which means simultaneously discouraging Israel from attacking while assuring it of U.S. backing.
This strategy will work but only for a while, perhaps a year, until choices must be made. At any rate, for now the president wants to maintain Israel’s willingness to postpone strong action and he knows Israel must be compensated — especially given the high level of risk — with security assistance and shows of support.
The other main issue is the impending revolution in Syria. America is stepping up its backing for the rebels by giving them advanced military training as well as helping to funnel increasingly heavier weapons to them.
The problem is, however, that almost all of this assistance is going to radical groups — the Muslim Brotherhood and even more extremist forces, which will result in ultimate power for a new government that will be not only ferociously anti-Israel but anti-American, too.
An aim of the trip was to discover what Israel’s attitude is toward events likely to lead to a new threat against it from a neighbour whose hostility will be even higher — as difficult a standard as that is to reach — than under the Arab nationalist dictatorship. Then there’s Egypt, where the new, and Obamabacked Muslim Brotherhood regime has also created a dangerous situation.
Obama showed specific emphasis on the possibility of Syria’s transfer of chemical weapons or other advanced weaponry to the Lebanese Hezbollah group, a client of Iran and Syria that has repeatedly attacked Israel, highlighting still another threat.
Here is the paradox of the U.S.Israel relationship at present. On one hand, Obama has repeatedly spoken of his great support for Israel, and while the bilateral relation has often been marked by friction, in practice the actual material links have remained on reasonable terms.
On the other hand, however, Obama’s regional policy has been disastrous for Israeli interests. In the past, he was soft on the radical regimes in Iran, Lebanon and Syria. He has openly admired the Islamist Turkish regime, which has bashed Israel while supporting Islamist forces and regimes in Egypt and Syria.
There should be no doubt that Obama spent his first term trying to distance himself from Israel and to win friendship from America’s enemies by showing sympathy for them. His declaimed support for democracy in the region usually — predictably — has led to a new age of radical dictatorship. Arab moderates and allies of the United States have been horrified. It is hard to find any gains from that strategy.
Now, however, he is returning to a more “normal” stance for an American president. Yet the regional situation, one which he has helped to create, is fraught with great dangers of instability and dangerous ambitions from the newly empowered regimes.
Can Obama and his new team — which is still dedicated to a strategy of supporting Islamists, downgrading U.S. leadership, and futilely seeking popularity — handle these arising problems and crises?
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book is Israel: An Introduction (Yale).