Sometimes headlines really do convey powerful messages. That was certainly the case with an AFP story, which appeared late last week under the headline, “Saudis deny discussing pressure on China over Iran with US”. The story was prompted by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ visits to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates last week. During a stop in Abu Dhabi the day after he had held meetings with Saudi King Abdullah bin ‘Abd al-Aziz and Defense Minister and Crown Prince Sultan bin ‘Abd al-Aziz in Riyadh, Gates offered some public observations about the Obama Administration’s efforts to persuade both Saudi Arabia and the UAE to use their economic leverage with China to persuade Beijing to be more supportive of imposing additional international sanctions against Iran. Specifically, Gates said, with references to the Saudis and Emiratis, “I have the sense that there’s a willingness to do that”. The next day, Saudi authorities dispatched an “official source” to the Saudi Press Agency to state that “this issue is not true, it was not discussed during the visit of the Secretary of Defense who was in the kingdom recently”.
So, America’s most important Gulf Arab ally does not even want to acknowledge that it might have discussed what remains of the Obama Administration’s imploding strategy to persuade China to support tougher sanctions against Iran. This is a profoundly negative comment on the Administration’s diplomatic strategy and performance.
We have written frequently and extensively, both on www.TheRaceForIran.com and elsewhere, on why China will not support the imposition of sanctions against the Iran that would harm what Beijing sees as fundamental economic, energy, and strategic interests. We have also written about why, from a Chinese point of view, getting the Saudis and the Emiratis to commit to pumping sufficient additional oil to cover what Iran currently exports to China will not persuade Beijing to drop its energy ties to the Islamic Republic. We do not want to belabor here the Obama Administration’s apparent lack of appreciation for the realities of China’s strategic calculations regarding Iran, energy security, and foreign policy.
But the Saudi reaction to Gates’ remarks in Abu Dhabi reveals how badly out of touch the Obama Administration is with Saudi strategic calculations about Iran, China, and the United States. Last week, we published an outstanding guest post by Jean-Francois Seznec that laid out why the Saudis do not support a military strike against Iran.
The Saudis are no less resistant to the idea of expanding sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Last month, at a joint press conference with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her most recent visit to Riyadh, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal referred skeptically to additional international sanctions against Iran as a “long-term solution”, noting that “we see the issue in the shorter term because we are closer to the threat…We need an immediate resolution rather than a gradual resolution”. To clarify that the Kingdom was unenthusiastic about both additional sanctions and a military strike against Iran, Saudi authorities had a senior “Saudi foreign policy official” tell the media that “there is no point in our spending all our time on sanctions which will not have an effect in the short term. We need something more tangible.” The senior “Saudi foreign policy official” then said that “we don’t want a military strike…a military strike, we still believe, will be very counter-productive.”
What would the Saudis support? The senior “Saudi foreign policy official” was commendably clear: “We need to do something on Israel and the Palestinians…For instance, the US could get Israel to halt settlements” on the occupied West Bank.” The Saudi official noted that “there is a credibility issue with the US administration on promises it cannot fulfill.” At his public appearance with Secretary Clinton, Prince Saud was equally forthright in saying that U.S. efforts to rid the Middle East of nuclear weapons needed to apply to Israel as well as other countries in the region—a reiteration of longstanding Saudi advocacy for the creation of a nuclear-weapons free zone in the region, perhaps starting in the Persian Gulf but ultimately extending across the whole region.
But, of course, the Obama Administration has already shown its lack of seriousness on the settlements issue, and could not possibly consider supporting an initiative for a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East. And so the United States is left with policy options that have no chance of succeeding in the real world.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
The source you provide doesn’t tell us, though, that “the majority of political funds obtained by Democrats, are given by Jews.” That’s a statement I have yet to see the evidence for.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=Q05
Here is one source covering lobby $ spent on congressional election campaign.
Funny, I couldn’t find anything specific to AIPAC (didn’t spent too much time though). However, they may channel their funding thru various sources.
James Canning:
thanks for the explanation. but my question was exactly the one you said. why should those Jews, born and raised in the U.S, put Israel’s interests before America’s with their money? well, I have a Jew Iranian friend who just does that. but I thought his case would be different; mostly shaped by the suffering of the first few years of the revolution, and he was there for a dozen of years only. it’s hard to imagine someone who lived his/her entire life in the U.S wholeheartedly lend the soul for Israel.
“The majority of political funds obtained by Democrats, are given by Jews.” Is that so? Can you guide us to a reliable source that provides evidence for that assertion?
Persian Gulf,
The answer to your implied question, as to why the Jewish point of view in American holds such sway with national politicians, so that the interests promoted by the government of Israel take precedence over the national interests of the US, lies in campaign funding. The majority of political funds obtained by Democrats, are given by Jews. Even if most US Jews do not like the war-mongering of the right-wing, they largely remain quiet as the Israeli tail wags the American dog, year after year after year.
Koosh: It’s the Lobby, baby. Nooooo contest.
So Jon, therefore who do believe retains the upper hand with regard to forming US’s Middle East policy, is it the military in the US or the Israel lobby?
You’re right Eric, and Secy. Clinton’s statement of today makes it plain that the executive branch also has no desire to challenge Israel. A tempest in a teapot, soon to be forgotten.
Kooshy, I have no objection to your rearranging of my sentences.
America is a nationalistic society. it’s really bizarre to see most of her politicians can put the interests of another land first. For example, aren’t those AIPAC members American born? I have little familiarity with Jewish culture, but in the late modern age, it’s astonishing to see how effective it is in shaping foreign policies of the longest democracy on the earth.
kooshy:
following your latest response to my post. it’s undeniable that CSR guys were wrong, indecisive, and Ahmadinejad’s gov. committed suicide on the nuclear front. contrary to what you say, the reformists were not all in a very bad positions. Khatami received almost the same votes in the second term, and they were unable to make a solid progress, nor did they need to fear an American aggression with more than 20 million votes on their disposal. indeed, reformists negligence of national security, which at some point was the result of their overemphasize on the internal struggle and Supreme leader’s stubbornness in not making a more open society, severely damaged public trust. as a result, internally it’s looked like a joke to focus on the nuclear issue in 2005. it might be true to accept your idea in 2006, but it’s hard to accept such a big changes based on the events of 2005. Ahmadinejad’s is absolutely right not to give credit to the supreme leader, as he noted recently. supreme leader is such an opportunist in the internal struggles. he had tried hard to kill the spirit of a great reform, specially in the first few years, primarily because of his lack of credential, charisma and his deep insecurity, and now is trying to take advantage of Ahmadinejad’s gains on foreign policies, e.g, the nuclear issue. it seems, he makes decisions occasionally based on consensus, as you say, when he is in a very weak position like a typical Akhond. otherwise, it’s all about his mandate.
actually, Majmae Tashkhish Maslehate Nezam itself is getting really irrelevant in Iranian society, if it’s not already reached there. the name itself shows a great discontinuity with the public will. if CSR is doing a vital job, it has to be under the office of president or at least the supreme leader’s based on the current situation. with what we see now, as it’s obvious from their publications, it’s a sort of rival to Ahmadinejad’s policies. that is not what it supposed to be as the name also says so. anyway, Mr.Rohani is not worth defending by any means.
Sorry Eric, you are correct, I was addressing Jon’s last post
Kooshy,
I assume you mean Jon’s last post (?).
Eric
Eric
How about if we rearrange your sentences on your last post and
Since “I do not see the US military achieving (or really, even seeking) a fundamental change in US policy in the Middle East.”
“I further believe this will all blow over with little or no effect on US-Israeli relations.”
Consequently, “The Lobby retains its hold over a large majority in Congress, not to mention the strong ties it has with the Christian Right. The latter is very pro-military, of course, but I do believe it places the Rapture first on its list of priorities”
Therefore, “At most the military is firing a shot across Israel’s bow, indicating that the Israelis should tone it down a bit”
Jon,
Both McCain and Lieberman have issued “family spat” statements, which pretty much answers the question raised in your final paragraph.
Dan, we are discussing this issue over at LobeLog. I believe (I do not have direct evidence for this) that the U.S. military is fronting for the Obama administration in its recent criticism of Israel. I further believe this will all blow over with little or no effect on US-Israeli relations. The Lobby retains its hold over a large majority in Congress, not to mention the strong ties it has with the Christian Right. The latter is very pro-military, of course, but I do believe it places the Rapture first on its list of priorities, with General Petraeus’ worries a distant second. I do not see the US military achieving (or really, even seeking) a fundamental change in US policy in the Middle East. At most the military is firing a shot across Israel’s bow, indicating that the Israelis should tone it down a bit. I don’t believe there is anything more than this involved.
Watch Sen. McCain as an indicator. If he comes out strongly against Israel — and I don’t just mean words, but possible legislative action — and if Sens. Graham and Lieberman support him or acquiesce through silence, then something real may happen. I still doubt it, though. This affair will blow over, and we’ll be back where we were (or nearly). Never underestimate the power of the Lobby.
Last week, Vice President Joe Biden was publicly slapped in the face by the Netanyahu Government during his trip to Jerusalem.
“The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel’s actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism.”
this as a struggle between two “lobbies,” namely the Israel lobby and the U.S. military. The Israel lobby is very powerful, he says, but how can it compete with the U.S. military asserting the imperative interest in the security of U.S. troops?
“This is Starting to Get Dangerous”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24982.htm
I agree with Jon. We on the road to disaster in a car with no brakes and no steering. Must be a Toyota
“I’d bet sorting that [Israel/Palestine] mess out would stop more terrorists than killing Taliban in Afghanistan.”
This appeared in a comment (#42) on Roger Cohen’s piece in today’s NYT. What’s interesting about it is not the point it conveys, but the fact that the writer appeared to believe this was a fresh observation, something that his readers had probably not thought of before and thus might find controversial.
Excellent summary of the situation. Some folks are saying that the recent slap in the face Biden received in Israel will lead to a fundamental reassessment of US-Israeli relations. The term “tipping point” has been used. I don’t see it. We continue to tie ourselves to a so-called ally that provides no net gain to American interests.
I see no evidence that this administration is going to do any of things required to improve the US position in the region. Clearly, abandoning the sanctions regime against Iran in favor of engagement, opposing Israeli colonialism on the West Bank, and (looking longer term) moving towards a nuclear-free Middle East should be our priorities. Such moves would strengthen US security and promote the interests of the American people. Yet we are pursuing none of these things. At some point, our current policy must lead to disaster for America — political, economic, and perhaps even military disaster. When that happens, Israel and its supporters may find themselves reviled by the American people. Yet the pro-Israeli crowd just goes on its merry way, apparently oblivious to the real dangers that threaten them and their pet country. And no one of substance in American political life dares challenge them. I just don’t see, as a practical matter, how we get off this track to disaster.
The Government of Israel has insulted the Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, one of the greatest “friends” of Israel (meaning: somebody totally subservient to AIPAC) and spat in the face of President Barack Obama.
But Biden and Obama did not give much cause for hope. They wiped the spit off their faces and smiled politely.
As the saying goes: when you spit in the face of a weakling, he pretends that it is raining. Does this apply to the president of the most powerful country in the world?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24985.htm
Happy new year to all Iranians
This time last year, Obama had an excellent opportunity to start rapprochement with Iran.
While he was wishing “the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” a happy new year, his secret service was planning to sabotage Iranian election and preparing the grounds for a regime change.
This is what Obama said:
“I would like to speak directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.”
It would have been more appropriate and honest if Obama said:
My administration is now committed to follow Bush’s covert operation to destabilize your government. This process will be advanced by a regime change, however if we are not successful in this endeavour, we will bomb your nuclear installations.
.
Joe Lieberman’s assessment of the Biden/Netahyahu incident:
“Let’s cut the family fighting,” said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut. “It’s unnecessary; it’s destructive of our shared national interest. It’s time to lower voices, to get over the family feud between the U.S. and Israel. It just doesn’t serve anybody’s interests but our enemies’.”
James
I could not agree more with what you have written on your post.
Bravo! Obama may lack to stomach to tell Netanyahu Israel must accept the Arab League peace plan (with some changes) and stop trying to create “facts on the ground” in an insane effort to keep much of the West Bank permanently. Israel’s stupidity puts US national security needlessly at risk. Regrettably, Aipac and other American organizations eat away at the national interests of the US, while pretending to be working to protect an essential ally of the US.