Assessing Netanyahu-Obama: Israel, Iran, and Palestine

Latest Post: Israel-Palestine - Obama's Two-Week Window
The Netanyahu Meeting: Obama Wins Battle, Loses War
Video and Transcript: Obama-Netanyahu News Conference

Enduring America, 16 May: "Of course, the two leaders may fudge the outcome, claiming success in an ongoing discussion without making any specific commitments on the next step in the Israeli-Palestinian process."

"Israel" prompts more spin and speculation than perhaps any other current issue --- even Afghanistan and Pakistan --- in US foreign policy. So, on the eve of and even during yesterday's meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama, there were the differing, even contradictory revelations: Obama would force Netanyahu to accept a two-state solution with Palestine. Obama would set a deadline on "engagement" with Iran. Netanyahu would concede to "two-state" talks. Netanyahu would not shift his position.

None of this actually happened (except maybe that last one).

None of this happened because each leader knew he would not get the other to adopt his chief demand: Netanyahu would not get an American suspension of discussions with Tehran, and Obama would not get the Israelis to move beyond a limited Palestine agenda consisting of economic development and security. So the aim for each was to ensure he maintained flexibility, while giving the appearance of a friendly and productive meeting.

Let's start with the Iranian spectre. In the press briefing, Obama had the huge advantage of speaking first. With Netanyahu's publicity machine in overdrive on the "existential threat" of Tehran, the US President set out this apparent shared ground:

Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and a threat to the United States, but would be profoundly destabilizing in the international community as a whole and could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that would be extraordinarily dangerous for all concerned, including for Iran.

Let's call this "The Bogeyman Tactic", as in I can tell my kid that I will protect him from the Bogeyman because I know he doesn't exist. As yet another CIA assessment concluded this month, the US has no evidence that Iran has an active programme for the development of nuclear weapons. So Obama could put out the bold statement which was hypothetical, rather than real.

Much more important was Obama's position on future talks with Iran. Once again he began with a diversion:

We are engaged in a process to reach out to Iran and persuade them that it is not in their interest to pursue a nuclear weapon and that they should change course. But I assured the prime minister that we are not foreclosing a range of steps, including much stronger international sanctions, in assuring that Iran understands that we are serious.

The agenda in the still-private US-Iran talks, at this point, is well beyond The Bomb. Tehran wants an easing of economic sanctions; Washington wants cooperation on regional issues, with Iran offering some assistance on Afghanistan and --- in its relations with countries and parties like Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah --- giving the US some diplomatic space on the Israel-Palestine and regional issues.

The misleading headline this morning is that Obama left "all options", including military action, "on the table" (Netanyahu's words, not the US President's). Just as inaccurate is the claim that Washington has set an end-of-year deadline on the Iran talks. What Obama actually said was, "It is important for us, I think, without having set an artificial deadline, to be mindful of the fact that we’re not going to have talk forever." Later in the briefing, he added:

We should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction and whether the parties involved are making progress and that there’s a good-faith effort to resolve differences.

From this, the press added 2 and 2 and got 5. It's wrong (although there is at least one Obama official, working against the Administration's current position, muttering about a deadline), but it's convenient for Washington. It keeps gentle pressure on Tehran while offering the President diplomatic cover. Without making any policy chance, he can let the Israelis claim that Washington recognises its concerns.

What then of Obama's priority issue, Israeli-Palestinian talks? The US President could not have been clearer on the central demand:

I have said before and I will repeat again that it is, I believe, in the interests not only of the Palestinians but also the Israelis and the United States and the international community to achieve a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians are living side by side in peace and security.

The ball was in his court, but Netanyahu simply ignored it. He offered, "We want to live in peace with [the Palestinians]." More substantially, he said, "We want them to govern themselves absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel." But instead of uttering the word "state", he put Israel's core demands:

If...conditions are met — Israel’s security conditions are met, and there’s recognition of Israel’s legitimacy — its permanent legitimacy, then I think we can envision an arrangement where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side in dignity, security and in peace.

And, with that, Netanyahu --- who said far less than Obama to make his points --- drew his line. Obama's pointed statement that "[Jewish] settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward". No response. Obama's call for action on the "humanitarian situation in Gaza"? Netanyahu sidestepped it with, "The president described to you those rockets falling out of Gaza."

On the day-to-day scorecard of statesmanship, the President and Prime Minister each got a Win. Obama blocked the Israeli insistence of Iran First:

If there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way. To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians — between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with the potential Iranian threat.

Netanyahu, however, ensured that Palestine First would be a far from quick and complete process. His agenda --- Israel gets recognition and guarantees on its security --- trumped any specific item put by Obama, let alone the concept of a Palestinian state.

Which, beyond any issue of the political and economic future for Palestinians, leaves only the problem that will overtake these talks --- a problem for Obama, not Netanyahu.

Read on: "Obama Wins Battle, Loses War"

UPDATED Video and Transcript : Obama-Netanyahu News Conference

Latest Post: Israel-Palestine - Obama's Two-Week Window
The Netanyahu Meeting: Obama Wins Battle, Loses War
Assessing Netanyahu-Obama: Israel, Iran, and Palestine

The news organisations are scrambling for interpretations of today's private meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, based on "sources" and the public press appearance of the two men. MSNBC is going with "Obama expects positive Iranian response; Netanyahu ready to resume peace talks if Palestinians accept Israel"; CNN holds back with the blander "Obama, Netanyahu discuss U.S.-Israeli disagreements".

We're going to take some time to decode the statements and leaks --- full analysis tomorrow. In the meantime, here's the three-part video and transcript of the press briefing

VIDEO (Part 1 of 3)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epqO4ku0x1A[/youtube]



VIDEO (Part 2 of 3)



VIDEO (Part 3 of 3)



OBAMA: All right, everybody. Just tell me when everybody’s set up. Great. Well, listen, I -- I, first of all, want to thank Prime Minister Netanyahu for making this visit. I think we had a (sic) extraordinarily productive series of conversations, not only between the two of us, but also at the staff and agency levels.

Obviously, this reflects the extraordinary relationship, the special relationship between the United States and Israel. It is a stalwart ally of the United States. We have historical ties, emotional ties. As the only true democracy in the Middle East, it is a source of admiration and inspiration for the American people.

I have said from the outset that when it comes to my policies towards Israel and the Middle East, that Israel’s security is paramount, and I repeated that to Prime Minister Netanyahu.

It is in U.S. national security interests to assure that Israel’s security as a (sic) independent Jewish state is maintained.

One of the areas that we discussed is the deepening concern around the potential pursuit of a nuclear weapon by Iran; something that the prime minister has been very vocal in his concerns about, but is a concern that is shared by his countrymen and -women across the political spectrum.

I indicated to him the view of our administration that Iran is a country of extraordinary history and extraordinary potential, that we want them be a full-fledged member of the international community and be in a position to provide opportunities and prosperity for their people, but that the way to achieve those goals is not through the pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

OBAMA: And I indicated to Prime Minister Netanyahu in private what I have said publicly, which is that Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and a threat to the United States, but would be profoundly destabilizing in the international community as a whole and could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that would be extraordinarily dangerous for all concerned, including for Iran.

We are engaged in a process to reach out to Iran and persuade them that it is not in their interest to pursue a nuclear weapon and that they should change course.

But I assured the prime minister that we are not foreclosing a range of steps, including much stronger international sanctions, in assuring that Iran understands that we are serious.

And, obviously, the prime minister emphasized his seriousness around this issue as well. I’ll allow him to speak for himself on that -- on that subject.

We also had an extensive discussion about the possibilities of restarting serious negotiations on the issue of Israel and the Palestinians.

OBAMA: I have said before and I will repeat again that it is, I believe, in the interests not only of the Palestinians but also the Israelis and the United States and the international community to achieve a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians are living side by side in peace and security.

We have seen progress stalled on this front. And I suggested to the prime minister that he has a historic opportunity to get a serious movement on this issue during his tenure.

That means that all the parties involved have to take seriously obligations that they’ve previously agreed to. Those obligations were outlined in the road map. They were discussed extensively in Annapolis.

And I think that we can -- there is no reason why we should not seize this opportunity and this moment for all the parties concerned to take seriously those obligations and to move forward in a way that assures Israel’s security, that stops the terrorist attacks that have been such a source of pain and hardship, and that we can stop rocket attacks on Israel, but that also allows Palestinians to govern themselves as an independent state that allows economic development to take place, that allows them to make serious progress in meeting the aspirations of their people.

And I am confident that in the days, weeks and months to come that we are going to be able to make progress on that issue.

So, let me just summarize by saying that I think Prime Minister Netanyahu has the benefit of -- of having served as prime minister previously, he has both youth and wisdom...

(UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE)

OBAMA: ... and I think is in a position to achieve the security objectives of Israel, but also bring back historic peace.

OBAMA: I’m confident that he’s going to seize this moment and the United States is going to do everything we can to be constructive, effective partners in this process.

NETANYAHU: President Obama, thank you.

(inaudible) friendship to Israel and your friendship to me. You’re a great leader: a great leader of the United States, a great leader of the world, a great friend of Israel, and someone who (inaudible) Israel appreciate it, and I speak (inaudible).

(inaudible) first time that we are meeting as president and prime minister, so I was particularly pleased in your reaffirmation of the special relationship between Israel and the United States. We share the same goal and we face the same threats.

The common goal is peace. Everybody in Israel, as in the United States, wants peace.

The common threat we face are terrorist regimes (inaudible) that seek to (inaudible) the peace and endanger both (inaudible).

In this context, the worst danger we face is that Iran would develop nuclear military capabilities. Iran openly calls for our destruction, which is unacceptable (inaudible). It threatens the moderate Arab regimes in the Middle East. It threatens U.S. interests worldwide.

But if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it could give a nuclear umbrella (ph) to terrorists or worse could actually give (inaudible) nuclear weapons. And that would put us all in great peril.

NETANYAHU: So, in that context, (inaudible) I very much appreciate, Mr. President, your -- your firm commitment to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear military capability, and also your statement that you’re leaving all options on the table.

I share with you very much the desire to move the peace process forward. And I want to start peace negotiations with the Palestinians (inaudible). I would like to broaden the circle of peace to include others in the Arab world. If we could, Mr. President, (inaudible).

I want to make it clear that we don’t want to govern the Palestinians. We want to live in peace with them. We want them to govern themselves absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel.

And for this there has to be a -- a clear goal. The goal has to be an end to conflict. There’ll have to be compromises by Israelis and Palestinians alike. We’re ready to do our share. We hope the Palestinians will do their share as well.

If we resume negotiations, as we plan to do, then I think that the Palestinians will -- will have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state; will have to also enable Israel to have the means to defend itself.

If those conditions are met -- Israel’s security conditions are met, and there’s recognition of Israel’s legitimacy -- its permanent legitimacy, then I think we can envision an arrangement where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side in dignity, security and in peace.

And I look forward, Mr. President, to working with you, a true friend of Israel, for the achievement of our common goals (ph), which are security, prosperity and above all peace.

Thank you.

OBAMA: We’re going to take a couple of questions. We’re going to start with (inaudible).

QUESTION: Mr. President (inaudible) at length, as did the prime minister, about Iran’s nuclear program. Your program of engagement -- policy of engagement, how long is that going to last? Is there a deadline?

OBAMA: You know, I don’t want to set an artificial deadline.

OBAMA: I think it’s important to recognize that Iran is in the midst of its own elections. As I think all of you, since you’re all (inaudible) reporters, are familiar with, election time is not always the best time to get business done.

Their elections will be completed in June. And we are hopeful that at that point there is going to be a serious process of engagement, first with the P-5-plus-1 process, which is already in place; potentially through additional direct talks between the United States and Iran.

I want to re-emphasize what I said earlier: that I believe it is not only in the interests of the international community that Iran not develop nuclear weapons; I firmly believe it is in Iran’s interest not to develop nuclear weapons, because it would trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and be profoundly destabilizing in all sorts of ways.

Iran can achieve its interests of securing international respect and prosperity for its people through other means. And I am prepared to make what I believe will be a persuasive argument that there should be a different course to be taken.

And the one thing we’re also aware of is the fact that the history, at least, of negotiations with Iran is that there is a lot of talk, but not always action that follows.

And that’s why it is important for us, I think, without having set an artificial deadline, to be mindful of the fact that we’re not going to have talk forever. We’re not going to create a situation in which the talks become an excuse for inaction while Iran proceeds with developing a nuclear -- and deploying a nuclear weapon.

That’s something, obviously, Israel is concerned about, but it’s also an issue of concern for the United States and for the international community as a whole.

My expectation would be that we can begin discussions soon, shortly after the Iranian elections.

OBAMA: We should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction and whether the parties involved are making progress and that there’s a good-faith effort to resolve differences.

That doesn’t mean that any (ph) issue would be resolved by that point, but it does mean that we’ll probably be able to gauge and do a reassessment by the end of the year of this (inaudible).

QUESTION: Aren’t you concerned that your outstretched hand has been interpreted by extremists, especially Ahmadinejad and (inaudible) Mashaal (ph), as weakness?

And since my colleague already asked about the deadline, if engagement fails, what then?

OBAMA: Well, it’s not clear to me why my outstretched hand would be interpreted as weakness.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) example.

OBAMA: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: The example of (inaudible).

They would have preferred to be on your side and move (ph) the extremists to Iran (ph).

OBAMA: Oh, I -- I think...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

OBAMA: Yeah, I’m not sure about that interpretation.

Look, we’ve been in office a little over a hundred days now; close to four months. We have put forward a clear principle that where we can resolve issues through negotiations and diplomacy, we should.

We didn’t expect, and I don’t think anybody in the international community or anybody in the Middle East, for that matter, would expect, that 30 years of antagonism and suspicion between Iran and the United States would be resolved in four months.

So we think it’s very important for us to give this a chance. Now, understand that part of the reason that it’s so important for us to take a diplomatic approach is that the approach that we’ve been taking, which is no diplomacy, obviously has not worked.

OBAMA: Nobody disagrees with that. Hamas and Hezbollah have gotten stronger. Iran has been pursuing its nuclear capabilities undiminished (ph). And so, not talking, that clearly hasn’t worked. That’s what’s been tried.

And so what we’re going to do is try something which is actually engaging and reaching out to the Iranians.

The important thing is to make sure that there is a clear timetable, at which point we say, “These talks don’t seem to be making any serious (inaudible).”

It hasn’t been tried before, so we don’t want to pre-judge that. But, as I said, by the end of the year I think we should have some sense as to whether or not these discussions are starting to yield significant benefits, whether we are starting to see serious movement on the part of the Iranians.

If that hasn’t taken place, then I think the international community will see that it’s not the United States or Israel or other countries that are seeking to isolate or victimize Iran. Rather, it is Iran itself which is isolating itself by (inaudible) -- being unwilling to engage in serious discussions about how they can preserve their security without threatening other people’s security, which ultimately is what we want to achieve.

We want to achieve a situation where all countries in the region can pursue economic development, commercial ties and trade, and -- and do so without the threat that populations are going to be subject to bombs and destruction.

That’s what I think the prime minister is interested in. That’s what I’m interested in. And I hope that ends up being what the ruling officials in Iran are interested in as well.

QUESTION: Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister, can you each react to (inaudible) statement about a week ago that we really are at a critical place in the conflict and that if this moment isn’t seized and if a peace isn’t achieved now, soon, that in a year, a year and a half we could see renewed major conflict and perhaps more? And do you agree with that assessment?

NETANYAHU: I think we have to seize the moment.

I think we’re fortunate in having a leader like President Obama and a new government in Israel, and perhaps a new understanding in the Arab world that I haven’t seen in my lifetime.

You are very kind to me calling me young, but I’m more than half a century old. And in my 59 years, in the life of the Jewish state, there’s never been a time when Arabs and Israelis see a common threat the way we see it today, and also see the need to join together in working towards peace, while simultaneously defending ourselves against this common threat.

NETANYAHU: I think we have -- we have ways to capitalize on this sense of urgency, and we’re prepared to move with the president and with others in the Arab world, if they’re prepared to move as well.

And I think the important thing that we discussed, among other things, is how to buttress the Israeli-Palestinian peace tracks, which we want to resume right away, (inaudible) from others in the Arab world (inaudible) give confidence to each other that we’re changing the reality, changing the reality on the ground, changing political realities (inaudible) as well, while we work to broaden the circle of peace.

And I think that the sense of urgency that King Abdullah expressed is shared by me, it’s shared by many others, and I definitely know it’s shared by President Obama.

OBAMA: Look, I think there’s an extraordinary opportunity (ph). The prime minister said it well. You have Arab states in the region -- the Jordanians, the Egyptians, the Saudis -- who I think are looking for an opportunity to break this longstanding impasse, but aren’t sure how to do it, and share concerns about Iran’s potential development of a nuclear weapon.

In order for us to potentially realign interests in the region in a constructive way, bolstering, to use the prime minister’s word, the Palestinian-Israeli peace track is critical.

It will not be easy. It never has been easy.

In discussions, I don’t think the prime minister would mind me saying to him -- or saying publicly what I -- I said privately, which is that there is a recognition that the Palestinians are going to have to do a better job providing the kinds of security assurances that Israelis would need to achieve a two-state solution, that, you know, the leadership of the Palestinians will have to grain -- gain additional legitimacy and credibility with their own people, and delivering services. And that’s something that the United States and Israel can be helpful in seeing them accomplish.

The other Arab states have to be more supportive and be bolder in seeking potential normalization with Israel.

And next week I will have the Palestinian Authority president, Abbas, as well as President Mubarak here, and I will deliver that message to them. Now, Israel is going to have to take some difficult steps as well. And I shared with the prime minister the fact that under the road map, under Annapolis, there is a clear understanding that we have to make progress on settlements; that settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward.

OBAMA: That’s a difficult issue. I recognize that. But it’s an important one, and it has to be addressed.

The humanitarian situation in Gaza has to be addressed.

Now, I was along the border in Sderot, and saw the evidence of weapons that had been rained down on the heads of innocents in those Israeli cities. And that’s unacceptable. So we’ve got to work with the Egyptians to deal with the smuggling of weapons. And it has to be meaningful, because no prime minister of any country is going to tolerate missiles raining down on their citizens’ heads.

On the other hand, the fact is is that if the people of Gaza have no hope, if they can’t even get clean water at this point, if the border closures are so tight that it is impossible for reconstruction and humanitarian efforts to take place, then that is not going to be a recipe for Israel’s long-term security or a constructive peace track to move forward.

So all these things are going to have to come together. And it’s going to be difficult.

But the one thing that I have committed to the prime minister is we are going to be engaged. The United States is going to roll up our sleeves. We want to be a strong partner in this process.

I have great confidence in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s political skills, but also his historic vision (ph) and his recognition that during the years that he is prime minister, his second go, he is probably going to be confronted with as many important decisions about the long-term strategic interests of Israel as any prime minister that we’ve seen in a very long time.

And -- and I have great confidence that he is going to rise to the occasion. I actually think that you’re going to see movement in -- among Arab states that we have not seen before.

The trick is to try to coordinate all this in a very delicate, political environment. And that’s why I’m so pleased to have George Mitchell, who is standing behind the (inaudible) there, as our special envoy, because I’m very confident that, as somebody who was involved in equally delicate negotiations in Northern Ireland, he’s somebody who recognizes that if you apply patience and determination, and you keep your eye on the long-term goals that the prime minister articulated, which is a wide-ranging peace -- not a grudging peace, not a transitory peace, but a wide-ranging regional peace, that we can make -- make great progress.

QUESTION: Mr. President, the Israeli prime minister (inaudible) Israeli administration has said on many occasions (inaudible) that only the Iranian threat (inaudible) can achieve (inaudible). Do you agree with that kind of linkage?

And to the Israeli prime minister, you were speaking about the political track. Are you willing to get into final status issues negotiations like borders, like Jerusalem in the near future based on the two-state solution? And do you still hold this opinion about the link between the Iranian threat and your ability to achieve any progress on the Palestinian side?

OBAMA: Well, let me say this.

There is no doubt that it is difficult for any Israeli government to -- to negotiate in a situation in which they feel under immediate threat. That -- that’s not conducive to negotiations.

And as I’ve said before, I recognize Israel’s legitimate concerns about the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons when they have a president who has in the past said that Israel should not exist. That would give any leader of any country pause.

Having said that, if there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way. To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians -- between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with the potential Iranian threat.

OBAMA: Having said that, I think that dealing with Iran’s potential nuclear capacity is something that we should be doing even if there already was peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And I think that pursuing Israeli-Palestinian peace is something that is in Israel’s security interests and the United States national security interests, even if Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon.

They’re both important. And we have to move aggressively on both fronts.

And I think that, based on my conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu, he agrees with me that they’re both important.

That’s not to say that he is not making a calculation -- as he should -- about what are some of the most immediate threats to Israel’s security. And I understand that.

But, look, imagine how much less mischief Hezbollah or Hamas could do if, in fact, we had moved a Palestinian-Israeli track in a direction that gave the Palestinian people hope. And if Hezbollah and Hamas is weakened, imagine how that impacts Iran’s ability to make mischief and vice versa.

I mean, so, obviously, these things are related but they are important separately. And I’m confident that the United States, working with Israel, can make progress on both fronts.

NETANYAHU: We’ve had extraordinary friendly, constructive talks here today. And I’m very grateful to you, Mr. President, for that.

We want to move peace forward and we want to ward off the great threats. There isn’t a policy linkage -- and that’s what I hear the president saying, and that’s what I’m saying, too, and I’ve always said -- there’s not a policy linkage between pursuing simultaneously peace between Israel and the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world, and trying to deal with removing the threat of a nuclear Iran.

There are causal links. The president talked about one of them. It would help, obviously, unite a broad front against Iran if we had peace between Israel and the Palestinians. And, conversely, if Iran went nuclear, it would threaten the progress towards peace and destabilize the entire area and disrupt the existing peace agreement.

So it’s very clear to us. I think we actually -- we don’t see closely on this; we see exactly eye-to-eye on this. We want to move simultaneously and in parallel on two fronts: the front of peace and the front of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capability.

On the front of peace, the important thing for me is to -- is to resume negotiations as rapidly as possible and to -- and my view is less one of terminology but one of substance.

NETANYAHU: And I ask myself, how do -- what do we end up with? If we end up with another Gaza -- the president described to you those rockets falling out of Gaza -- that is something we don’t want to happen because a terror base next door, cities that doesn’t (inaudible) recognize Israel’s existence, calls for our destruction and acts for our destruction is not interested (ph) in peace.

If, however, the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, if they -- if they fight terror, they educate their children for peace and to a better future, then I think we can come to a substantive solution that allows the two peoples to live side by side in security and peace. And I add prosperity (inaudible).

So I think the terminology will take care of itself if we have the substantive understanding. And I think -- I think we can move forward on this.

I have great confidence in -- in your leadership, Mr. President, and your friendship to my country, and in your championing of peace and security. And the answer is both come together, peace and security are intertwined, they’re inseparable. And I look forward, Mr. President, to working with you to achieve both.

OBAMA: Thank you, everybody.

Iran: Following Up the Roxana Saberi Case

Related Post: Monday’s Israel-US Showdown - Iran First or Palestine First?

Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi, freed on appeal after an 8-year sentence for espionage, is now far from Iran. Her drama will now disappear from public view.

The significance of the outcome, however, will be lasting.

There were some interesting revelations in the last stages of the case. In particular, Saberi's lawyer revealed that his client had translated a confidential Iranian document on the US position in Iraq. This, plus Saberi's visit to Israel, had aroused Iranian suspicions that the journalist was not operating without a licence but providing information to a foreign agency. Here was Saberi's representative, not Tehran, was offering evidence for the escalation of the charges from buying wine to carrying out espionage.

This did not rule out the political dimension of the case, in particular, the rush to try and sentence Saberi. However, it could explain why the US Government was careful not to press Tehran too hard. Indeed, it appeared that the attorney's statement was part of a deal with Tehran in which Saberi would be released but Iran's actions would be (at least partially) vindicated.

For the Iranian political system, after Saberi was sentenced, acted very pragmatically. President Ahmadinejad was quick to "request" the hearing of an appeal, which meant the court would hear an appeal. And, since defendants who are allowed to appeal are almost always successful in Iran, the message was clear: Saberi's sentence would be reduced, most likely to the point where she would be able to leave the country.

None of this should be read as benevolence. The calculation was clear: the Obama Administration has advanced towards engagement with Tehran, and Iran --- tentatively at first, but now steadily behind the scenes --- has responded. The Saberi case should not derail that process. That assessment was reinforced, I suspect, as it became clear that Saberi was naive rather than sinister in her activities.

Thus a court case becomes politically significant, especially becomes of its timing. Saberi was released a week before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits Washington to insist that the US break off the engagement with Iran. The freeing of Roxana removes a card (albeit probably a 7 rather than an ace) from Netanyahu's hand.Of course, the rhetoric will continue about the maniacal leadership in Tehran, but the substance here is realpolitik rather than evil or ideology.

Sometimes, the celebration is not only of a humanitarian outcome but of the less-than-humanitarian manoeuvres that lie behind it --- and of the political and quite positive consequences that may follow.

Monday's Israel-US Showdown: Iran First or Palestine First?

Related Post: Iran - Following Up the Roxana Saberi Case

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit on Monday to Washington is shaping up as a critical early moment --- even amidst the torture controversy, Afghanistan-Pakistan, and a minor thing called the global economy --- in the Obama Presidency.

The Israelis are sticking to the line that something has to be done about the Tehran menace before they will address other regional issues, in particular negotiations with Palestine. That "something" is unlikely to be military action; instead, Netanyahu will ask Washington to step up economic sanctions. At the very least, the demand will be that the US break off its "engagement" with the Iranian Government. (An editorial by Efraim Halevy, the former head of Israel's intelligence service Mossad, in Thursday's Financial Times of London is a must-read: "The 'sequence' must be clear: Iran first.)

Leading Obama officials, notably Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have already countered that the issue of Israeli-Palestinian talks must be the priority. Iran's nuclear programme should not be the excuse (the Americans have stopped short of the word "blackmail") to stall on a two-state solution, which Netanyahu and his Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, still oppose.

How serious is the debate? Consider this story, which just emerged: two weeks ago CIA Director Leon Panetta visited Israel to warn Netanyahu against an airstrike on Iran. Consider, however, that Israeli officials framed this as a warning against a "surprise attack", leaving open the possibility that Tel Aviv could attack if the US was notified in advance.

And consider also this "information", first published in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz but then circulated in The Wall Street Journal:

The Obama administration and its European allies are setting a target of early October to determine whether engagement with Iran is making progress or should lead to sanctions.

They also are developing specific benchmarks to gauge Iranian behavior. Those include whether Tehran is willing to let United Nations monitors make snap inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities that are now off-limits, and whether it will agree to a "freeze for freeze" -- halting uranium enrichment in return for holding off on new economic sanctions -- as a precursor to formal negotiations.

What adds a bit of spice to the claim, implying that Iran has less than five months to meet US conditions, is The Journal citation of "senior Administration officials" as sources. The indication is that there is still a battle among Obama's advisors over whether to treat "engagement" as an ongoing negotiation or whether to combine it with guaranteed sanctions if Tehran does not make the required moves within a quick (in diplomatic terms) period of time.

That possibility, while intriguing, is still secondary to what happens on Monday. What President Obama needs now is not an Iranian concession but an Israeli one. If Netanyahu holds fast and does not open up the possibility of "genuine" talks with the Palestinian Authority, including discussions of political status as well as economic development and security, then Obama's message --- launched on Inauguration Day --- of a new day in the Middle East is looking shaky.

Of course, the two leaders may fudge the outcome, claiming success in an ongoing discussion without making any specific commitments on the next step in the Israeli-Palestinian process. And Washington is guarding against disappointment: that is why it left eight days between the visit of Netanyahu and that of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on 26 May and another two days before Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas comes to the White House to see what's happening.

That, however, would not be enough. Obama has tied himself to an address to the "Islamic world" on 4 June from Cairo. His rhetorical approaches so far --- the Inaugural Address, the interview on Al Arabiya television in January, the speech from Turkey last month --- have been warmly received. This time, however, he has to bring something of substance to the table. Otherwise, it will be a speech too far.

Forget that "first 100 days" media fluff. Monday will be a true example of when the initial stages of a Presidency transform into defining moments.

Shifting Alliances: The Israel-Turkey-Syria Triangle

Two weeks ago, Turkey and Syria held, for the first time in history, joint military drills. The exercises were a clear sign of the increasingly close ties between the two states as they co-operate on wider agendas.  At the same time, they raise the question: what happens to other relationship, notably the long-standing ties between Ankara and Tel Aviv?

When Turkey felt isolated by its neighbors in 1995, the first door it knocked on was Israel's. The Turks had one eye on recent manoeuvres by Greece: the Greco-Syrian military training agreement in 1995 followed a similar arrangement between Israel and Greece in December 1994. On the economic front, the volume of trade between Israel and Greece reached $350 million, double that of 1989. Meanwhile, Syria was causing problems with the border dispute over Hatay, arguments over water, and Hafez al Assad's support to the PKK, the Kurdish "terrorist" organization.

Turkey's nightmare was wider cooperation between Syria and Israel, meaning that Tel Aviv would be tied to long-standing rivals both in Damascus and in Athens. So Ankara countered with a full alignment with Israel. Military, economic and technological agreements were reached in 1996, and a trilateral operation in the Eastern Mediterranean by Israel, Turkey and the US was conducted in January 1998.

More than a decade later, it is Tel Aviv which is concerned about "isolation" as other countries establish alliances. Defense Minister Ehud Barak called the Turkish-Syrian exercise "a worrisome situation" and the Israeli press featured the issue after the head of the Turkish military, Ilker Basbug said Turkey was not interested in Israel's reaction. The Jerusalem Post tried to limit the exercise's significance, with the claim of Professor Efraim Inbar that he had spoken to Turkish army officers: "The Turkish military does not like Syria, and views it as a problematic state." The newspaper also highlighted tensions between the army and Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party.

The Israeli criticisms are evidence that the fallout from the rhetorical war between Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Israel's leaders has not dissipated. The revenge for Erdogan's attack on Israel at the Davos summit is the wearing down of his Justice and Development Party. Thus the hostility to the Turkish-Syrian exercises is in part a message to Turkey's military: keep your Prime Minister under control.

As for the regional politics, the Israeli response is another signal that  any peace will have to start with Israeli-Syrian talks rather than alignments beyond Tel Aviv. Yet the Israeli-Syrian discussions have been sidelined with the Netanyahu Government's focus on Iran, set against the US insistence on a two-state solution with Palestine.

So the Israeli media fills the political vacuum while trying to keep both Turkey and Syria off-balance. The question arises: is this also the aim of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, or are they also trying to figure out how to reconcile Israel's relationship with its immediate crises with its wider but now suspect "alliances" in the region?