Engagement with Iran (Postscript): Did US Tell Israeli General to Take a Hike?

Related Post: Engagement with Iran - A Hopeful US Approach
Related Post: Engagement - And There's Hope on the Iranian Side As Well....

A story from Israel's YNet News on Monday raises the prospect of a Washington rebuff to Israel on how to approach Iran.

The article begins with a statement of the Israeli hopes for a hard line towards Tehran: "IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Gabi Ashkenazi (pictured), who is on an official visit to the United States, told his American colleagues Monday that the Iranian threat could still be handled via sanctions, but stressed that an Israeli military strike was a "serious" option."

It soon becomes clear, however, that Ashkenazi was told to put his airplanes away by US National Security Advisor James Jones, Dennis Ross, the State Department special advisor on Iran, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "[Ashkenazi] did note that economic sanctions on Iran remain the preferable option at this time."

Even more interesting is this note, which I don't think was picked up in the American press: "Later Monday evening, Ashkenazi decided to cut his visit to the US short, in order to attend the government's meeting Tuesday on the prisoner exchange deal meant to secure the release of kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit."

Yeah, right. Ashkenazi is far from a central figure in the political talks with Hamas on Shalit. What is more likely is that, having originally scheduled a five-day stay in the US, the General saw that Tel Aviv's agenda was going nowhere. That interpretation is given even more substance by this denial, which still raises a smile:

IDF Spokesman Brigadier-General Avi Benayahu said that "the decision stemmed from his desire to attend meetings regarding Shalit's retrieval, but it is not to be taken as a reflection of any possible outcome of the negotiations."

Washington's rejection of Ashkenazi's approach is solely on the military side of the Iran question. What remains to be seen is whether, after Hillary Clinton and Dennis Ross floated the idea of a harder diplomatic line with Iran during the Clinton wide ride in the Middle East earlier this month, others in the Administration --- possibly eclipsing Clinton and Ross --- are also going to rebuff Tel Aviv's insistence on tougher economic sanctions.

Target Iran? This Week's US-Israeli Talks

Related Post: That Obama “Review/Muddle” on Iran

The visit to the US by Israel's top military commander, Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi (pictured), which we noted a few days ago, has received no attention in the mainstream press. There are a couple of teasing indications on the Internet, however, of where the talks may be going.

Iran's Press TV, in the midst of an over-wrought (and misleading) story that "U.S., Israel on the same page on Iran timeline", offers this revelation:

Within days of Mullen's pronouncement of close Israel-U.S. cooperation, his Israeli counterpart, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, was putting it to the test in Washington meetings with Gen. James Jones, President Obama's national security adviser, top Pentagon brass and Dennis Ross, who shapes Iran policy at the State Department.

Subtle differences in the Hebrew and English official accounts of Ashkenazi's meetings were telling.

"Throughout the day, the Chief of Staff met with the National Security Adviser, Gen. James Jones, with whom he discussed professional matters such as Iran's nuclear plans, the security situation along Israel's northern border, weapons smuggling, as well as the situation in the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza Strip after operation 'Cast Lead,' " said the statement put out Monday by Israel for the foreign media.

The Hebrew statement, put out by Israel for domestic consumption, said Iran was the "foremost" issue that Ashkenazi discussed.

I suspect the differences in the two statements are not just presentation. This suggests that US officials are continuing to emphasize that Iran has to be approached as part of a regional evaluation which considers the next steps on the Israel-Palestine situation. So, while Tel Aviv might be pressing for an Iran-first approach --- strengthened sanctions and possibly military action --- Washington will not be "on the same page".

Other reports have suggested that Ashkenazi's failure to see US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is a further snub to Israel. I'm doubtful about this, as James Jones, heading the National Security Council, would be setting out the US inter-departmental view, and Ashkenazi is also seeing the key State Department official, Dennis Ross.

Instead this report, again from Press TV, is telling if true:

Ashkenazi reportedly outlined for Ross contingencies under which Israel could attack Iran, reiterating it was not on the table for now. Coincidentally, a paper from the [US] Center for Strategic and International Studies published this week said that such an attack was doable, if difficult, both through an air attack and by long-range missiles.

The report, by Abdullah Toukan, said that such an attack would "give rise to regional instability and conflict as well as terrorism."

Such a consequence clearly worried Mullen, too, even though it is not on the immediate horizon.

“What I worry about in terms of an attack on Iran is in addition to the immediate effect, the effect of the attack -- it’s the unintended consequences. It’s the further destabilization in the region," Mullen said. "It’s how they would respond. We have lots of Americans who live in that region who are under the threat envelope right now."

In short, Ashkenazi may have put Israel's case for a focus on Tehran ahead of other Middle Eastern issues but, with the Israeli Government in transition, the immediate approach is not going to be military. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration continues to be in what one might politely call "a review phase" and less politely call "a muddle" over its next steps on Iran.

Target Iran? Israeli Military Chief in Washington For Talks

Here's a story that has set a few tongues wagging and minds racing on the Internet.

The Chief of Staff of the Israeli Military, General Gabi Ashkenazi (pictured), is spending five days in Washington. He's not only seeing the sights but also chatting with National Security Advisor Gen. James L. Jones, special State Department advisor Dennis Ross (still officially concerned with "Southwest Asia and the Gulf"), and military commanders.

Iran's Press TV is a bit over-the-top with its proclamation of "simmering talks of war", but the attention to Tehran, rather than other Middle Eastern issues, is more than justified. While interchanges between Israeli and American military leaders, as part of Tel Aviv's special relationship with the US, are commonplace, the presence of Ross at the discussions is significant. So is the timing.

Israeli diplomats are putting out the story that incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be putting Iran --- not Palestine, not discussions with Syria, but confrontation with Tehran --- as the first priority before the US. This is not surprising, given Netanyahu's pronouncements over the last decade, let alone during the recent electoral campaign, but the willingness of Israeli officials to state this clearly is striking.

For example, one diplomat has revealed that Netanyahu told US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Israel earlier this month, "[Iran] was the be all and end all....If [Washington] wants anything to move on the Palestinian front, we need to take head [sic] on the Iranian threat, diplomatically, with sanctions, and beyond that." (emphasis added)

Clinton allegedly replied, "I am aware of that."

Israeli pressure for a specific move won't come until after the Iranian elections in June, and of course Netanyahu still has to put together a workable coalition in Tel Aviv. Instead, the immediate impact of the Israeli moves, symbolised by Ashkenazi's visit to Washington, may be to limit any American "engagement" with Iran.

"There was one positive coming out of her decision to come here," the Israeli diplomat said. "To make sure everyone realizes that a) she is into this topic, b) that the Obama administration will not let it drop in the priorities list."

An Israeli diplomat offered this spin, either as a reflection of Clinton's attitude or as attempt to box her in: "There was one positive coming out of her decision to come here. To make sure everyone realizes that a) she is into this topic, b) that the Obama administration will not let it drop in the priorities list."

The diplomat continued, "As for substance, there is no [American] policy, which is more or less in a mild way, something she admitted....The Obama administration is in an exploration phase....There is nothing new here. The players are the same. The plot is the same. The solutions are the same."

Of course, the Obama Administration is unlikely to be enthusiastic about the "and beyond that" part of Netanyahu's message to Clinton. This isn't 2003 when the US Government, flush from "victory" in Iraq, could envisage regime change in Tehran as a short- to medium-term opportunity. With Iran now in a position to be useful, if not vital, to Washington on the priority issue of Afghanistan, any ratcheting-up of pressure on Tehran could be counter-productive.

Paradoxically, however, that only ensures that the Israeli Government and supporters will press harder --- even in the absence of a Government in Tel Aviv --- for the "right" US line. This, in part, is why the campaign to block Charles Freeman as head of the National Intelligence Council was so vicious and so symbolic. The next target may well be Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, who is taking the "wrong" line on Tehran with his (accurate) presentation of the US intelligence community's assessment that Iran is not close to The Bomb.

(Robert Dreyfuss draws the far different conclusion: "Here's the reality behind the Freeman debacle: Already worried over Team Obama, suffering the after-effects of the Gaza debacle, and about to be burdened with the Netanyahu-Lieberman problem, the Israel lobby is undoubtedly running scared. They succeeded in knocking off Freeman, but the true test of their strength is yet to come.")