Israel and the Middle East: France Jumps In

Over the last week, Paris has sent three signals of concern to Tel Aviv. First,President Nicolas Sarkozy said last Wednesday that an Israeli attack on Iran would be an “absolute catastrophe”.

Second, Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner held talks on Friday with a Hezbollah legislator. Responding to Israeli criticisms, Kouchner said: "Hezbollah is part of the parties that participated in the recent parliamentary elections. It is natural to meet with its representatives."

And on Saturday, Ha'aretz reported, via Israel Radio,  that Kouchner had told his Lebanese interlocutors in Beirut that Washington had given Tel Aviv 6 months to halt expansion of settlements in the West Bank: "The U.S. could extend the six-month deadline, though Washington will not provide sponsorship to a renewed peace process if Jerusalem continues settlement construction."

If true, Kouchner has just set up a two-way message to Israel and Iran: while Tehran has its deadline --- negotiate by September or face tougher economic sanctions --- the Israelis are now on notice over the Palestinian process. The question is whether the French have developed this with the US.  If Tehran fails to satisfy the demands of the international community, Washington and Paris will lean more to the Israeli demand for stricter sanctions on the Islamic Republic. However, if Tehran moves to meet the demands, Washington will start ignoring the classic Israeli rhetoric on Iran's nuclear threat unless Tel Aviv halts its policy on settlements.

Israel: Livni Challenges Prime Minister Netanyahu's 100 Days

In Israel, the Netanyahu Government has concluded its first 100 days with the claim that it has "broad national consensus" for its concept of a two-state solution. Some, however, are still to be convinced.

Tzipi Livni, the head of the opposition Kadima Party, laid out the challenge:

The prime minister still does not really believe that this is the right path for Israel but he understands that this is the right thing to say… Netanyahu doesn't really believe that two states, a Jewish state and a Palestinian state, even a demilitarized one, is an Israeli interest… But the prime minister was surprised to encounter the outside world and placed Israel, to my great sorrow, in the position of the party that is rejecting peace and then he understood that at this stage he needs to utter the words "two states".

Speaking to Army Radio, Livni called Netanyahu’s new-found support for a two-state solution  “the height of hypocrisy”:

Everything this government does is superficial… When the public looks at Bibi, it understands that he is playing with words, that there is no process here… This is a government that is trying to survive, that zigzags, that is not dealing with the financial crisis.

To some extent, of course, Livni's position stems from domestic political calculations. The more ground that the Netanyahu Government gives because pressure from the Obama Administration, the better placed Livni will be within the context of a Washington-led settlement. If progress is slow, which is what the Obama Administration is also expecting, the Kadima leader's challenge will be even more important for the US. So Livni, having lost to Netanyahu in March, may already be plotting her domestic and international revenge.

Keeping Israel in Check: Washington Says No Warplanes to India

Israel may be India's second-largest arms supplier after Russia, but she is feeling a bit of pressure from Washington.  According to the Jerusalem Post, the Pentagon forced Israel Aerospace Industries to back out of a joint partnership with a Swedish company, Saab, to compete in a multi-billion dollar tender, developing a new model of the Swedish-made Gripen fighter jet and selling 120 to the Indian Air Force.

Boeing and Lockheed Martin, the two largest US defense contractors, are also competing for the Indian deal. Beyond the commerical consideration, however, Washington does not want to transfer Western technology, integrated in the new Gripens, to India.

American pressure is also a response to the alliance of interests between the Israeli and Russian militaries, symbolised by the despatch of  unmanned aerial vehicles to Moscow. And there is always the issue of leverage on Tel Aviv to offer more concessions in talks with Palestinian representatives.

Iran: How Strong is the G8 Statement on the Nuclear Programme?

The Latest from Iran (10 July): What Next?

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

After ""L’Aquila Statement on Non-Proliferation Declaration"": it's a long name for the G8's balancing act on the Iranian nuclear programme. This is a diplomatic document seeking common ground through careful language: "We reiterate our unanimous commitment to working for a comprehensive, peaceful and diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue and strongly support ongoing efforts to resolve it through negotiations."

The Statement continued:

We urge Iran to use the present window of opportunity for engagement with the international community in a spirit of mutual respect and to respond positively to the offers advanced, in order to find a negotiated solution which will address Iran’s interest as well as the international community concerns. While recognizing once again that Iran has the right to a civilian nuclear program under the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty], we stress that Iran has the responsibility, as reiterated by UNSC Resolutions, to restore confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear activities, allowing for the establishment of a fruitful and wide-ranging cooperation with the G8 and other countries.

The proliferation risks posed by Iran’s nuclear program continue to be a matter of serious concern. We urge Iran to comply with the relevant UNSC [United Nations Security Council] Resolutions and to fully cooperate with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] by providing the Agency such access and information that it requests to resolve the issues raised in the IAEA Director General’s Reports.

President Obama offered a suitably-worded interpretation to wag a finger at Tehran:

Now, we face a real-time challenge on nuclear proliferation in Iran. And at this summit, the G8 nations came together to issue a strong statement calling on Iran to fulfill its responsibilities to the international community without further delay. We remain seriously concerned about the appalling events surrounding the presidential election. And we're deeply troubled by the proliferation risks Iran's nuclear program poses to the world.

Others in the Obama Administration were willing to be even starker in their portrayal of the threat. A day before the release of the Statement, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, spoke to the Center for Strategic and International Studies:

I believe Iran is very focused on developing this capability, and I think when they get it, or should they get it, it will be very destabilizing.

The very same day, along with Mullen's self-confident speech, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated that Tehran's acquisition of nuclear weapons would be a destabilizing factor in the region and said that the United States would call for "even stricter sanctions on Iran to try to change the behavior of the regime."

However, on Wednesday, a more careful message came from the French President Nicholas Sarkozy. On one hand, he warned Tel Aviv not to attack Tehran as this would be an "absolute catastrophe". On the other hand, he reassured, "Israel should know that it is not alone and look at all this calm. If I have fought so hard in the name of France to get people talking about Iran it's also a message to the Israelis that they are not alone," and delivered a deadline to Tehran: "If no progress is made, leaders will reach new decisions at a G20 economic summit in Pittsburgh in late September."

So it's not the statement of the G-8 Summit that poses the questions over future relations with Iran. Those are in the post-summit positions now being considered in Washington and Paris, not to mention Moscow and Beijing.

Israel’s Plan B on Iran: Paralyzing Sanctions?

After U.S. Vice President Joe Biden stated last week that Israel would decide for itself whether to attack Iran, a senior Israeli government official offered a "Plan B" of paralyzing sanctions against Tehran as soon as it is established that there is no hope for a dialogue: "Israel is adjusting its messages to the new circumstances created by the unrest in Iran… These things must be stated clearly now so that there is no confusion about our position.”

The official added:

Before the protests in Iran began, Israel's assessment was that the planned American-Iranian dialogue had little chance of succeeding. But in light of the protests, and the need of Iranian hard-liners to shore up their rule, Israel's intelligence community believes the chances of the dialogue even beginning, much less succeeding, are near zero… In the situation that has arisen following the protests in Iran, there is much greater international readiness for harsh steps against the regime in Tehran.

However US officials reportedly have again rejected Israel’s Plan B because the groundwork for stiffer sanctions would signal that the Obama Administration is not serious about dialogue with Tehran.

So back to Square One. What is Tel Aviv's next step in the manoeuvres between the US and Iran?