Monday, July 5, 2010 - 9:33 AM

This week's meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime
Minister Netanyahu comes at a sensitive juncture -- Middle East peace
efforts remain largely stuck, Iran continues to move forward with its
nuclear program, and the United States and Israel
are looking to patch up their bilateral ties after one of the rockiest
years in recent memory between the two countries. The fundamental goal
of the meeting is to bring the two countries towards closer strategic
alignment on these issues. Doing so will require
both Obama and Netanyahu to learn lessons from the events of the past
few months.
First, the latest round of United Nations, American, and European
sanctions mark a new and sensitive phase on Iran policy, and there is
deep uncertainty about what comes next. Yet while the United States and
its allies cannot afford any surprises or
miscalculations, the recent experience during the Gaza flotilla
incident should provide reason for concern. The strategic blowback from
that incident demonstrated the downsides of how Israel's current
government seeks to safeguard its security. One pressing
question is what lessons Israel takes from the flotilla incident as
both it and the U.S. consider their options on Iran. Regrettably, if
Israel's raid on the flotilla is an indicator of what can go wrong when
Israel tries to secure its southern border, then
the international community should be doubly concerned by any military
action Israel might take against Iran.
Second, the Gaza flotilla raid demonstrated that Israel does not
always effectively game out the strategic and political consequences of
its military operations -- something that also witnessed in the 2006 war
against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, a finding
affirmed by Israeli government inquiry. At times, the Israeli political
and security leadership have made decisions that lacked sound military
strategy without thinking through the likely international reaction.
This ultimately undermines Israel's own security
by undercutting its support around the world. Neither Israel nor
the United States can afford to see a replay in Iran of what happened in
Lebanon four years ago or off the shores of Gaza five weeks ago.
Third, there is a clear risk that Israel might move ahead with a
military strike against Iran that would not likely succeed in improving
either its security or strategic position -- similar to the results it
achieved from the flotilla incident. From an
operational, tactical, and strategic standpoint, Israel's handling of
the flotilla incident did not improve its overall security -- it only
maintained an unsustainable and fragile status quo. In turn, it is not
clear that it would obtain better results through
a strike on Iran, especially as few analysts think that military action
against Iran's nuclear infrastructure would stop Iran from acquiring
nuclear weapons. The most obvious nuclear targets -- above ground
nuclear facilities -- are only one part of a vast
and growing network of facilities, many of which are underground. The
hidden facilities would remain and a preemptive strike would probably
both motivate the regime to redouble its efforts to seek the bomb and
bestow Tehran with more room to maneuver from
the international community than it deserves.
Given these realities, the Obama administration should place a
higher premium on enhancing its political and military coordination with
all key allies in the region, particularly Israel. President Obama and
Prime Minister Netanyahu need to make sure that
their teams have honest, frank, and proactive strategic discussions
about the benefits and costs of all options in dealing with Iran. A
more thorough preparation for all contingencies -- ranging from military
action and regime change to unconditional diplomatic
engagement with offers of security guarantees -- should be quietly
discussed. But the two leaders should also have their teams discuss the
costs and benefits of an eventual containment strategy should Iran
acquire a nuclear weapon. Such discussions should
set clear red lines to avoid surprises, and ultimately should also
include the perspectives and likely reactions of other key American
allies in the region.
For too long, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been
stuck in a tactical mode, reactive to events like the flotilla incident.
This has not enhanced American or Israeli security, despite the
urgency of the threats our countries face. Last month's
raid on the Gaza flotilla was a wakeup call. The United States cannot
afford any additional surprises on the multiple fronts of its Middle
East strategy -- it has come to expect the unexpected from countries like
Iran and Syria -- but it is not helpful when
our closest allies offer their own surprises.
The Obama-Netanyahu meeting should therefore seek to establish a new bilateral strategic coordination group consisting of senior members of both security teams -- and the first issue this new group should discuss is next steps on Iran. Our two countries cannot afford to surprise each other in this dangerous part of the world.
Brian Katulis is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. Joel Rubin is Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer of the National Security Network
why don't you actually look at the map?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Westbankjan06.jpg
not even close to 42%. maybe 5%.
the UN is definitely biased and hypocrite, especially its "human rights" council that condemns israel more than it does sudan, china, iran, saudi arabia, etc. the council's hypocrisy has been condemned by both secretary-generals kofi annan and ban ki-moon, and by the council's president himself - doru costea.
israel's supreme court is constantly described as one of the best in the world, maybe the only one on the world that regulates security matters and safeguards the rights of enemy citizens. this cannot be said about any other supreme court.
if according to your claims, the palestinians have already reached 6 million, from being only half a million just 60 years ago, then they are one of the fastest-growing nations in the world, and there are some first graders who understand the term "ethnic cleansing" better than you do.
U.S. Policy on Israeli Settlements
Former Israeli Ambassador to the UN Dore Gold weighs in on the issue here
http://tinyurl.com/lcur44
No mention of Israeli settlements?
No mention of Israeli settlements? Then I must be reading something by a representative of a liberal thinktank - like Brian Katulis at CAP, which on every other issue is on the Left but when it comes to Israel they put their Realist hats on - Realist that is in terms of Israeli interests rather than America's.
FP cranks out 3 or 4 articles a day about Israel. Why does a 3 paragraph article about Iran need to mention the settlements? That's a separate issue. Does every article about Iraq need to mention Vietnam?
What do you want them to do? Commit suicide?
yes, we get the picture. The funders of FP want to press their "morally flexible" point that we should make peace, negotiate, not defend ourselves.
How to Make Stories out of Non-Issues
People like you have been warning that an Israeli strike against Iran is "imminent" for over a year now. It is no closer to happening than it was in the spring of 2009. Meanwhile, Iran is no closer to the bomb. Why should this be Bibi and Barack's number one priority? In the short term there are bigger problems for both the US and Israel.

The Middle East Channel offers unique analysis and insights on this diverse and vital region of more than 400 million.
Read More
(7)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE