Obama and Netanyahu Meet: Relationship and Differences Unchanged
Latest update: March 6th, 2012
print
tell a friend
Photo Credit: Amos Ben Gershom/GPO/FLASH90
President Barack Obama on Monday asked Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to give the sanctions against Iran more time to force it into submission, until it announces – as North Korea has just done, reportedly – that it would halt its nuclear plans in exchange for food. But Netanyahu gave no sign that he was taking a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities off the table.
It is a rare thing in such high level meetings that so much effort and energy would be spent only to produce a position that is an exact replica of both sides’ stand before the fuss.
Unless the fuss itself was the purpose of this high level meeting.
Take, for instance, the absence of heated disagreements, before or after the meeting. The same gulf that separated the two men yesterday was still there, but neither leader appeared particularly upset over what should have been a discussion of life and death for both of them. A nuclear Iran would surely be capable of delivering a stunning blow to Israel, God forbid, but it would also be able to seriously damage US interests, in the Middle East and elsewhere. Imagine the reaction of the Saudi Royal house to its loathsome Shi’ite neighbor, already an existential threat to the region’s oil producers, wielding a nuclear device. It is the stuff of American nightmares, too.
Unless the meeting today was not about Iran’s threat but about the stability of Netanyahu’s coalition government and Obama’s chances at the polls in November.
I spoke to an official of one of the right-wing factions in the Knesset who told me that all day long Leftist officials had been grabbing him by the collar and reading him the Democrats’ talking points: Obama protected Israel in the UN and in Durban; Obama is paying for Israel’s anti-missile project, and so on.
“I told them: can you imagine if he didn’t?” the official said. “How could he even think of getting re-elected if, say, the US didn’t reject the Goldstone report?”
In that vein, neither leader likes the other very much, and at least one has been caught saying as much in public. But today, more than ever, they need each other.
Both leaders have economic issues and social protests to deal with, and whether the answer is subjective, objective or politically prejudiced, both leaders stand a chance of failing the Ronald Reagan ultimate election question to the voter: Are you better off today than you were four years ago?
And so engaging Iran in an ongoing verbal duel would work well for both Obama and Netanyahu.
Strangely, the same duel appears to still be serving well their foe, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Mind you, this does not mean that the Iranian nuclear threat is not real. It only means that we who do not have access to secret intelligence (and I suspect even those who do) have no concrete idea about Iran’s progress in building a nuclear device, because Iran has been barring any and all inspection from those facilities. Ahmadinejad has played a brilliant game of Three Card Monte, and even seems to be having oodles of fun with it. Here you see it, here you don’t, we may have the bomb, we may not, who knows.
Obama sought to assure Netanyahu that the United States was keeping the military option against Iran open, and “has Israel’s back,” and at the same time urged Israel to wait patiently for the sanctions and, possibly, diplomacy, to do their job.
Netanyahu, for his part, concentrated on Israel’s undeniable right to defend itself against Iran, and reiterated that Israel sees Iran’s nuclear program as a threat to its existence.
The problem is, both leaders had held precisely the same positions before and after their meeting. So why meet?
Plausibly in order to meet. The show’s the thing.
Let’s face it, Israel is hesitant about striking Iran in the near future. It may not be able to do so overwhelmingly without the superior US air power. And the US cannot permit Iran to continue brandishing its nuclear swords, because it’s bad for business everywhere. Because it could end with a barrel of oil selling at $200, and this would surely mean a Mormon president in the White House come January.
There are only three directions this plot can go in the next six months, and all three are perfectly plausible:
Iran may capitulate under world pressure.
Israel may decide it can’t wait any longer and strike on its own.
The US and Israel may decide it’s time to take out Iran.
We knew all that on Sunday. We know nothing more today.
But consider this:
While no one in the West can say with certainty how real is Iran’s nuclear threat, they all appear to be ignoring a different threat which is frighteningly real and no one doubts that some day, God forbid, it would be in play.
It has been estimated that Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza are capable of launching at least 50 thousand rockets each into Israeli territory. While Iran has never officially confronted Israel directly, Hizbollah and Hamas have done it, and quite successfully, too. Then how come Israel isn’t drumming up the same warlike language regarding these very real threats?
Possibly because there’s no point in making the effort. When the time comes, Israel will act – we hope.
As it surely will in the case of Iran. The rest is fanfare.
tell a friendAbout the Author: JewishPress.com Senior Internet Editor Yori Yanover has been a working journalist since age 17, before he enlisted and worked for Ba'Machane Nachal. Since then he has worked for Israel Shelanu, the US supplement of Yedioth, JCN18.com, USAJewish.com, Lubavitch News Service, Arutz 7 (as DJ on the high seas), and the Grand Street News. He has published two fun books: The Cabalist's Daughter: A Novel of Practical Messianic Redemption, and How Would God REALLY Vote.
You might also be interested in:
You must log in to post a comment.
2 Responses to “Obama and Netanyahu Meet: Relationship and Differences Unchanged”
2
Loading ...
Iran is Nazi Germany and Obama is Neville Chamberlain wanting to make Israel 1938 Czechoslovakia. Obama craves a general settlement of Mid East problems which means that Israel would probably be called on to foot the bill. For example, in return for an Iranian promise not to advance to nuclear weapons, Obama would probably be prepared to force Israel to give up its nuclear weapons, not to mention the possibility of forcing on Israel disadvantageous terms with respect to the longstanding dispute centering on Muslim and Arab refusal to recognize the legitimacy and permanence of Israel as “the” Jewish State, i.e. as the political expression of the self-determination of the Jewish People in a part of its aboriginal homeland. Does it matter how much Obama is against Israel because he is a leftist or how much because of his intimate and longstanding ties to Islam and Muslims? Both of these are strong anti-Israel currents that flow in the same direction. No matter what the public posture, truth is that the Israel government does not trust Obama who is also more or less mistrusted by all of America’s traditional allies in Europe and Asia. Internationally who is it that trusts Obama? Who is it that is prepared to rely on Obama’s word? Charles de Gaulle once significantly said that “treaties are like roses and young women, they last as long as they last.” However, a promise from Obama has even less currency in the international marketplace, and not because I say so, but rather because that is how the relevant players themselves perceive Obama’s character and commitment.
Great comment by Allen z. Hertz!