|
Sunday Dec 14, 2008
Rosner's Domain: Steve Rosen on Obama, Israel and the Middle East. Readers can send questionsPosted by SHMUEL ROSNER
Comments: 31      Take Rosner's Election Projection Survey!!! Steve Rosen is an experienced Washington insider. He is also a man mostly known to news readers as one of the defendants in the so-called AIPAC trial. As I've reported a couple of weeks ago, Rosen now has a new blog - the Obama Mideast Monitor - in which he shares his Washington-wisdom with all those interested. Rosen will answer Rosner's Domain questions this week and readers can send him questions (use this email. Of course, he will not, and cannot, answer questions related to his trial). In the coming days, I will post some questions I sent Rosen and his responses. We will also deal with readers' questions as we get them. Here we go: Friday, 12.19 Rami asks: Do you like the idea of "special envoy" for the peace process, and who would you like to see as such envoy? I don't see any evidence that having a special envoy, or not, is critical to outcomes. If obama appoints one for the mideast, Dennis Ross is probably the best of those he is said to ne considering. Thur, 12.18 Do you think Israel will get the OK (I guess the reader means the support of the Obama team) if it decides that a military operation in Gaza is needed? Bush was very supportive of Israeli security measures, but even his Administration raised questions from time to time about the security barrier, selective targeting, checkpoints, closures, incursions, arrests, and other practices. I would expect this to continue under Obama, probably with an enhanced concern about human rights issues. But Obama is a realist, and has repeatedly expressed support for the legitimacy of self-defense.
Israel has never put the U.S. in the position of having to approve measures it takes for its own defense. Neither side wants the U.S. to have responsibility or authority for Israel's national security. But, in situations where there is an impact on American interests, Israel does try to explain to its most important ally why the measures are justified and necessary.
Americans do not have the right or the competence to tell Israel what it needs to do for its security. But they do have the right to express what they consider the impact on American interests will be. And Israel does in most cases take this into account.
The critical operational challenge Obama will face, is the necessity to have Ambassador Susan Rice exercise the U.S. veto at the U.N. Security Council, to block unfair and one-sided resolutions condemning Israel for defending itself. This is often a painful exercise for American diplomats, because it gives the appearance of endorsing what are sometimes very tough Israeli measures. Wed, 12.17 3 Responses to readers' questions: What do you think about the idea of Obama delivering a major policy speech in a Muslim capital? Do you really believe that Obama and Hillary Clinton can work together? Yes, as well as Sharon and Peres or Bibi and Barak--maybe better. Steve also wrote a response to some of the comments made by readers (at the bottom of the page). A new danger arises from renewed speculation in today's New York Times, that Mohammad Khatami may oppose Ahmedinijad in the Iranian Presidential election on June 10, and that he could have support from Rafsanjani's camp. This increases the chance that the Obama team will delay their outreach to Iran until late 2009, enabling Iran to "run out the clock.". Khatami is certainly a more likeable figure, but his past history gives little reason to believe he will slow the nuclear program. For example, In March 2002, at the height of the Khatami presidency, Iran began work to improve the P-2 centrifuge to enrich uranium more rapidly than the P-1. In August 2002, the Iranian opposition exposed a secret enrichment plant at Natanz that Iran had concealed from the IAEA. The IAEA found traces of highly enriched uranium in February through April, 2003 inspections at Natanz. In April, 2003, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said that Iran had started an ambitious nuclear energy program and was poised to begin processing uranium. As soon as the U.S. began the invasion of Iraq to overthrow Iran's mortal enemy Saddam Hussein, beginning on March 20, 2003, Khatami's Iran began infiltrating agents and weapons into Iraq to take the lives of American soldiers and support insurgents undermining U.S. efforts at stabilization. By August 6, 2005, when Khatami stepped down, the aggressive Iranian nuclear program and the Iranian subversion in Iraq were in high gear. Tuesday, 12.16 Do you agree with Congressman Robert Wexler who said (I wrote similar things) that "US President-elect Barack Obama could work well with Likud head Binyamin Netanyahu"? Absolutely, especially if Bibi heads a wider unity government with Barak and/or Livni. Bibi needs a diplomatic process as much as Obama does, and he will seek close cooperation with the Administration. Monday, 12.15 Do you think Obama's intention of "engaging" Iran can produce the desired outcome of stopping it from acquiring nuclear weapons? Unfortunately, no. Vigorous international economic sanctions could have worked a decade ago, but now we are too close to the threshold of Iranian nuclear capability. I hope their outreach to Iran, to which they are firmly committed, begins immediately upon taking office, rather than waiting for the Iranian Presidential election in June. Most of the proponents of engagement look to a new Iranian President as an opportunity, and they argue that negotiations before June 10 could strengthen Ahmedinijad. I see Iran as a unitary state controlled by the Supreme Leader, not the President, so the elections won't change the bottom line. Most importantly, I don't think we can lose most of 2009 waiting for a new Iranian regime to be fully established, and then expire another six to twelve months on negotiations that fail, and still have enough time left to stop their nuclear program. If we are going to go through the process of offering them a grand bargain to see if it will work, it is essential to do so as soon as possible. Let's not argue about it - let's get going. If "engaging" Iran will not do it, what will be the next step or the one after using force or giving up? I believe that this momentous question will face the Obama Administration very soon. The use of force raises many grave risks and uncertainties, but the consequences of a nuclear Iran will be exponentially worse. Whether the new government of the United States, and for that matter the new government of Israel, live up to their responsibilities to our children, will be the acid test, and it is coming early. Sunday, 12.14 Using your experience and familiarity with Washington's foreign policy elite, how would you describe the new Obama team and what kind of policy do you expect it to pursue? We have to distinguish between the Cabinet level, which makes the final decisions, and the subcabinet professionals, who shape the issues and the options and in many cases drive the decisions of their superiors. We have most of the Cabinet names, but not the nominees for Middle East-specific positions. The incoming Cabinet includes a Secretary of State and a Vice President with long records on the Middle East that are on the whole quite positive. Obama's stated positions are as sound as any incoming President in history. We have more reasons for confidence at this early stage than we did at a similar point with the George W. Bush administration, and that one became what is generally regarded as the most pro-Israel in history. Remember that Bush himself was a question mark in 2000, because of his father's conflicts with Israel; Cheney came from Halliburton; Rice was relatively unknown on these issues, etc. Obama's is a team quite capable of pursuing a sound strategy in the Middle East. I don't think they are going to find the opportunities for Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking promising, much as they are ready to commit American resources to broker an agreement. They will learn, if they do not already know, that stepped-up American engagement is not a magic wand or the missing ingredient that will somehow transform the situation. Hamas' control of Gaza, its foothold in the West Bank, the radicalism of the "outside" Palestinians, the stockpiles of Kassams, the Iranian role - all this and more will still be there. Abu Mazen represents a minority of all Palestinians, and does not have the credibility to obligate the PLO to concessions that many Palestinians would depict as a sellout. The Obama Administration will pursue a peace process to strengthen Abu Mazen and to meet the minimum needs of regional allies like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, as well as the Europeans. But this will reflect a strategy of conflict management rather than a naïve belief that the situation is ripe for conflict resolution. The 64 million dollar question: is the Obama team going to "pressure" Israel? How and what about? The main points of friction will be the traditional ones: Israeli settlement activity and the impact of Israeli security measures on the Palestinians. Many Democrats believe that Israel needs a little "tough love" in these areas, and that Bush was too tolerant toward Israel about them. How much of this pressure will be public, and how much it will really differ from past Administrations, all of whom also pressured Israel on these issues, remains to be seen. And most importantly, which choice will the Obama team then make: trying to live with the Ayatollahs with the A-bomb, or doing something to prevent it. To me, the real questions are how long the new Administration will allow the Iranians to "run out the clock" through dilatory tactics, and at what point they will recognize that the Iranians are using negotiations as a ruse to complete the program. More on Rosner's Domain: Rosner vs. Richman: Support "Israel", not "the people" of Israel Richman vs. Rosner: Gaza disengagement was not democratic Take Rosner's Election Projection Survey!!!
1 | Avraham - Yerushalayim, Sunday Dec 14, 2008
"Generally regarded"? By whom? Because, I think that making Iran a superpower was a bad thing. But, hey, I could be wrong.
2 | captainjohann, Sunday Dec 14, 2008
Sir,
Why Israel doesnot think SAUDI ARABIA with its wahabi/salafist idology as ENEMY? It always talks about Iran. Iran is a member of NPT and it has right to enrich uranium under IAEA safeguards.But it is trumptetted as nuclear weapon? Does ordinary people donot know something? is it possible to have nuclear arms with civilian enrichment under IAEA safeguards?
I am also curious why Isreal is so bothered about one Isreali held by Hamas while ignoring the brutal murder of JEWS FROM 4 COUNTRIES AND ALSO THE TORTURE OF WIFE OF CHATHAM HOUSE PREACHER.?
3 | Ger, Raanana, Sunday Dec 14, 2008
Your lead-in to this article is grossly misleading. Rosen does NOT say that the incoming Obama administration will be friendlier to Israel than the present Bush Administration, nor does he even imply it. He adds that President Bush is generally (and rightfully) regarded as the friendliest American Administration as far as Israel is concerned.
4 | Ingid - Olympia, WA United States, Sunday Dec 14, 2008
The Obama Administration will be friendlier to Israel than the Bush Administraion: Bull
5 | Amnon, Jerusalem, state of Lemmings, Sunday Dec 14, 2008
Dear Mr. Rosen,
It was your AIPAC that gave us those darlings - Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller, Danny Kurtzer, Dickie Haass and Marty Indyk. The first three of them were as dumb and deaf to their earlier boss's "F the Jews" ranting as Obama seems to have been when his "uncle" Jerry was pouring excrement on the United States and on Jews. But they sure knew how to champion Arafat.
Now, this incoming President, with a track record not exactly favorable to Israel has hired them back, with two vicious anti-Semites, Malley and Power.
So please tell me how he can be trusted to friend Israel?
6 | Jack Eisenberg, Sunday Dec 14, 2008
Dear Mr Rosen.
Based upon recent reporting in Haaretz, I don't thiink Obama plans to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes, and the plan to provide Israel with a "nuclear umbrella" is unrealistic. What's your opiinion.
Despite the rhetoric I still have trouble regarding GWB as Israel's best presidential friend ever. I say this because, as predicted, his attack on Iraq has only hurt Israel especially by diverting what should have been major American attention away from Iran, its worst enemy; his statement just after
first being elected putting the I-P negotiations on back burner; and Rice's idiotic enabling of the election that put Hamas into power.
What do you think of Barghouti?
What's your take vis a vis AIPAC vs the Jaybirds?
Many thanks,
Jack Eisenberg
7 | Chris Brown Xalapa, Veracruz Mexico, Monday Dec 15, 2008
To commenter above. Why should Iran not have the same right to nuclear weapons as does Israel? Israel I don't believe is a signatory to the non-proliferation agreements. Given the USA invasion and subjegation of Iraq, if I was leading Iran I'd be advocating a head long effort to develop nuclear weapons.
8 | STATE DEPT.,, Monday Dec 15, 2008
The problem with this view of the Israel conflict, is that it ignores, much the same as the Media has ignored,l the SAUDI ARABIA influence "behind the silken curtain." One would hardly realize that Saudi Arabia has guided USA Mideast policy for decadesl They have managed to bamboozle our White House and US State Dept. that America must cater to the Saudis and the Arab bloc, lest USA policy fail. . They have bought influence from such as JAMES BAKER, with money stolen from Americans via OPEC, a criminal oil cartel. Alternate energy will restore balance.
9 | St Sobolovski, Monday Dec 15, 2008
Obama's action may be the "64 million dollar question", but the priceless statement is from the Torah:
Psa 118:9 "It is better to take refuge in the LORD Than to trust in princes".
10 | Hofikoman, USA, Monday Dec 15, 2008
The best time for the Obama administration to pressure Israel is at the beginning when they are negotiating with Iran. Because if they don't get what they want from Iran and her proxies, then they will fall back on an expansion of the Sunni option by supporting Abu Mazen with NATO troops. Whether Bibi or Tzipi, neither will be like Jack Ryan who in Clear and Present Danger refused to dance the Potomac two step.Israel does have the option to throw in with the American opponents of Obama but that will only help Obama do what Bush also wants to do: Be perceived as more balanced on this dispute.
11 | Windsong, Monday Dec 15, 2008
Could not help thinking that the US Election Obama and the people was just a replay of Elvis and Colonel Sanders, but the boy could come up good! Apologies for our woefully ignorant PM Mr Brown and his equally woefully ignorant pal Tony Blair, we the ordinary British citizens fully understand Israel must be Jewish and that the people to whom they refere as settlers have simply obeyed and gone home this is called making Alliyah. FIrst of all the Lord whistles for them , and if they still dont come they get fished or hunted. Go claim the Home the Lord has for you Jews and Bless Yawl !
12 | American, Monday Dec 15, 2008
Do you think the Obama administration will allow enough wiggle room and carrots for Iran? We never got anywhere with Russia on the first try. Also to what degree will they pusue technology toward independent fuels as a vital security decision and not a separate green initiative. American
13 | Joel, Thursday Dec 18, 2008
MR. ROSEN, why don't we have the names of potential "nominees for Middle East-specific positions" Since we knew the names of potential nominees for other positions LONG before Obama made a public announcement, shouldn't we have a list of potential names for the Middle East? I'm 23 and fear that Obama will have ME "subcabinet professionals" that will push the same, biased foreign policy beliefs against Israel my college professors (who love Obama foreign policy) advocated/used to brainwash students. It will just be the decision makers-not college students-being given anti-Israel options.
14 | Shalom Freedman Jerusalem Israel, Thursday Dec 18, 2008
The key issue of Iranian nuclear capability was not really addressed by the Bush Administration. Any sane person could have known the Iranians' would not respond to the sanctions. One great problem here is American 'naievete and good- will' which will 'negotiate' as Iran continues with its progress toward a nuclear capability. The Khatami maneuver may be yet another delaying tactic which enables the Iranians to come to being a 'screw- turn away' from the bomb.
This is a real test of whether President - elect Obama sees superficially , or can really understand the danger and stop Iran.
15 | Ken...Castel, Israel, Thursday Dec 18, 2008
I am an American currently living in Israel. My statement is: WHO CARES WHAT OBAMA or the US thinks?! Israel DOES NOT need the approval of the United States for ANYTHING it wishes to do to protect The Jewish People and Israel!! When Americans and Israeli's understand this, maybe things will be 'done' to protect Israel from MUTANT regime's like...oh...let's say...iran. STOP WAITING FOR A GREEN LIGHT FROM ANYONE, ISRAEL! Did the US ask YOUR permission to go into Iraq? I doubt it. Stop worrying about being funded, and by whom! G-d is on YOUR side! AND STOP FORGETTING THIS, TOO! tick tock!
16 | Lenny, Thursday Dec 18, 2008
Will Obama let Israel attack Gaza???? Oh my goodness, what sort of question is this? Has it got to the point that in order to defend ourselves we need 'permission' from a novice 'president elect' (who has his own problems at the moment,) re: the existential threat that we face on a daily basis?! Will someone please tell me that this is Alice in Wonderland stuff, or at the very least - that I am dreaming!
17 | Yidith, Jerusalem&Toronto, Thursday Dec 18, 2008
LET US?!!! Are you nuts?
Which SOVEREIGN country asks for third party approval concerning it's defence policies of it's citizens or territory? (the word 'sovereign' is a clue)
Yohoo!! I have news for you!! Jews don't live in Galut Ghettos anymore!! So, loose that ghetto mentality of yours!!
As long as we behave like frightened appeasing ghetto-Jews we will be treated as such.
It's imperative that we now choose leaders who, if necessary, veeeery politely tell any head of state where they can stick the idea that they have any say over Israel's defence policies.
Enough already!!
18 | Tom, USA, Thursday Dec 18, 2008
I don't think that Obama will prevent Israel from attacking the unarmed people of Gaza. But I DO think that Obama will cut off all aid to Israel in the event that they attack the inmates of the Gaza concentration camp.
19 | John saint louis USA, Thursday Dec 18, 2008
to Tom #18:
I am ashamed that you identify yourself as an American. please move to France or some other Palestinian-supporting country
20 | Lenny, Thursday Dec 18, 2008
Tom: Are these the concentration camps set up by Palestinian jailors to keep their inmates trapped for politically expeidant purposes? The jailors who took billions intended for their prisoners to improve their lives, and spirited the money away into their private swiss accounts. The jailors who continually reject Israel's legitimate right to live within safe and secure borders? The jailors who have spurned every offer of peace ever made to them? The jailors who kill and trample on their own, should they disagree with them? I presume so. Obama gets this much, even if you don't!
21 | Matthew, Canada, Thursday Dec 18, 2008
If Obama tolerates yet another attack against the inhabitants of Gaza, it will be a strong slap in the face of the millions of American voters that supported him. Those that wished for ''change'' will see how shallow the meaning of this word is when it is spoken by Obama. However, it seems that the new administration will endorse the Israeli ''self-defense'' sham, and once again inflict a collective punishment on a million of terribly impoverished Gazans for a handful of them firing Kassams and other fireworks in no man's land.
22 | Bob - USA, Thursday Dec 18, 2008
Xalapa, where is it written that possessing nuclear weapons is a right? If U were Iran U would develop nuclear weapons because of the US invasion of Iraq? To what end? It will take Iran several yrs to build even a small nuclear arsenal of a few dozen weapons w/ questionable delivery systems. The US already has 1000s of warheads & delivery systems capable of traveling 1000s kms, going through a pre-selected window in a specific bldg w/out damaging the window frame. If the US even suspected that Iran was launching a nuclear strike, Iran, as a nation, would cease to exist in a matter of hours.
23 | Bob - USA, Thursday Dec 18, 2008
Matthew, I paid very close attention to Obama's campaign. I remember him talking about the economy, Iraq, Iran, the environment, the US infrastructure, energy independence, etc. I don't remember any of the policy changes he discussed having anything to do with Israel, Gaza, Samaria, Judea, or the Golan. As for the "Israeli self-Defense sham", over 1000 Israeli men, women, & children were murdered and over 3 times that many maimed in Arab terrorist attacks in the recent intifada. Explain how this is a "sham".
24 | Cliff, Leadville, Colorado, Thursday Dec 18, 2008
The Iranians wouldn't be a threat if the U.S.A. would have taken care business when Jimmy Carter was president. The Ancient Hebrew Scriptures say were not to pay the Ransom when our people are taken hostage. We are not to negotiate with terrorists nor to give in to any of their demands! This creates a disease in the terrorist mind. We've created this world wide terrorist problem every time we make treaties with these terrorists. The enemy understands only one thing; the destruction of Israel and death. It is very clear that either we or or Israel must step up to the plate soon.
25 | Matthew, Friday Dec 19, 2008
I will explain to you how this is a sham: whenever you hear of an Arab terrorist attacks in Israel, you can multiply the Israeli casualties by a factor of 3, and you get the approximate number of Arabs killed in retaliation. For example, for the period spanning 2005 to 2007, 1290 Palestinians have been killed, while 86 Israelis had been killed for the same period. Between 1987 to 2000, 1549 Palestinians have been killed as opposing to 421 Israelis. Palestinians call their terrorism ''self-defense'' too. Facts and numbers cannot lie.
26 | American, Friday Dec 19, 2008
We have our own serious economic/foreign issues. I don't think Obama is going to get involved in Israel's policy at home other than the usual lip service. I differ with Iran. Even if talks don't progress, I don't see the U.S. invading because of the risks involved and the long term consequences. If we did suceed ,the huge cost for the next 100 years wouldn't be worth it. The U.S. is aware of the difference of fighting terrorist vs fighting terrorism and a direct hit would be disastrous for us. There would be some consequences and game changing, but not a direct hit.
27 | nate, Friday Dec 19, 2008
Well we're certainly seeing quiet about Hamas' daily rocket attacks on Sderot etc.. Would there be same quiet if e.g. Miami was rocketed daily for 9 years???????????
28 | Hofikoman, USA, Friday Dec 19, 2008
Create grass roots support for a nuclear-free Iran throughout the United States.NOTE: Don't use the negative slogan "United Against a Nuclear Iran"whichfunded politicos have come up with. The "Yes we can" of Obaman utopianism will reject "united against!" But it will have to respond to a grass roots FOR a nuclear-free Iran. Stress Iran's perfectionist pretensions. We Americans really wish you Iranian Islamists will succeed in being the exmplar for humanity! But for us that means NO NUKES for you. When Iran moans about being humiliated say: what? taking over our embassy didn't make even steven
29 | steven, USA, Saturday Dec 20, 2008
Obama is inexperienced and naive. The Israeli lobbiests in our country will be able to pressure Obama into doing anyhting. It wont be Israel getting permission from America to do something, it will be America getting permission from Israel to do something.
30 | raman, Saturday Dec 20, 2008
now bush era end.coming obama if truly bring the changes towards middle east policy ya keeping same policy like bush administration?.we wait and see.
31 | Susan-Argentina, Saturday Dec 20, 2008
Mathew, BLOOD IS THICKER THAN WATER.ARABS ARE MAKING WAR.WHAT DO YOU EXPECT AS A RESULT? ISRAEL HAS AN ORGANIZED ARMY, WHILE YOU HAVE TERRORIST , BOMBERS ,NAIVE BOYS RECRUITED TO BLOW THEMSELVES OUT IN PUBLIC PLACES TO MEET WITH THE 73 ISLAMIC( I infere) ALLEGED "VIRGINS" THAT ALA IS SAID TO HAVE PROMISED FOR THEM.¿does it sound familiar? YOU ARE LIVING AGES BEHIND!!!.GET DOWN TO THIS EARTH AND STOP MAKING WAR-Work and live in a decent way.Hard work? of course.Israel was made this way
IF YOU WANT DIFFERENT RESULTS YOU WILL HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU MUST STOP DOING THE OLD DEVILISH THINGS.
|
 |
Search this blog
The Israel Factor, Sep. 2009: Obama is rapidly losing favor with panel of Israeli experts
Tags:
Blogroll |
Post your own comment
