Tuesday, March 23, 2010 - 2:57 PM

One apparent area of agreement among virtually all public participants in the recent debate over U.S.-Israeli relations is the importance of confronting Iran. Secretary of State Clinton made it a theme of her remarks to the AIPAC policy conference, as did PM Netanyahu, and interestingly enough, it's implicit in General David Petraeus's comment to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict complicates U.S. efforts to forge effective alliances with other Middle East states.
Add to that a recent column by Michael Hirsh of Newsweek, who quotes an unnamed U.S. official saying that the real reason Obama went ballistic over the continued Israeli intransigence regarding settlement building is that this policy is undermining U.S. efforts to deal with Iran.
In short, what you see here is an emerging consensus that Iran is the problem, and we've got to address Israel-Palestine in order to focus everyone’s attention on that. For the record, some of the things I've written are consistent with that view too.
But one word of caution, courtesy of Trita Parsi. Trying to push Israeli-Palestinian peace in order to then go after Iran has one obvious downside: it gives Tehran an enormous incentive to do whatever it can to derail the admittedly fragile peace process. As Parsi shows in his prize-winning book Treacherous Alliance, this is what happened during the 1990s, after the Bush administration excluded Iran from the Madrid Conference and after the Clinton administration had adopted the policy of "dual containment." Iran had never paid that much attention to the Palestinian issue before then, but it started ramping up support for Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups as a way to pay the United States back and to undermine U.S. efforts to isolate them.
So instead of announcing (or hinting) that we are interested in Israeli-Palestinian peace primarily so we can go after Iran, we ought to emphasize that we are interested in peace there because it’s the right thing to do (i.e., better for us, better for Israel, and obviously better for the Palestinians). At the same time, we should continue patient, realistic (and maybe even more imaginative) efforts to improve relations with Iran, so that they don’t have greater incentives to play the spoiler. Ditto Syria.
If we play our cards right, we might even generate something of a virtuous circle; where various parties with whom we now have disagreements begin to realize that they ought to deal now, lest we mend fences elsewhere and leave them with a weaker bargaining position down the road. But notice that will require a far-sighted, patient, and coherent approach to the region, and not just a single-minded focus on one particular problem.
Amos Ben Gershom/GPO via Getty Images
EXPLORE:ARAB WORLD, MIDDLE EAST, DIPLOMACY, IRAN, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, SYRIA, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
"the real reason Obama went ballistic over the continued Israeli intransigence regarding settlement building is that this policy is undermining U.S. efforts to deal with Iran"
Oh please. What has Obama done for the last year? Nothing. What has Obama done when Iran has failed to meet his deadlines? Nothing. What has Obama done to get Russia and China to support sanctions? Nothing.
And really Walt, what do you care? You have little problem with Iran having a nuclear bomb and have said so many times on this blog.
"So instead of announcing (or hinting) that we are interested in Israeli-Palestinian peace primarily so we can go after Iran, we ought to emphasize that we are interested in peace there because it’s the right thing to do."
Peace is the right thing to do, but if you think Iran is going to be fooled by us not explicitly saying "if we have peace we can go after Iran" you are even more naive that I thought you were. The US will always be "the Great Satan" becuase this is part of the core ideolgy of the regime. Without a massive change in its government, that is unlikely to happen given Obama's tut-tut of the stolen election.
The Arab/Muslim world will always look for someone other to blame , to divert the attention from the real issue . That is the culture of extremism , backwardness , poverty , unableness to govern a country . Every Arab country a dictatorship or chaos . What Arab country precedents will give us a hint that a new Palestinian state will be different ? And now they have a convenient scapegoat called Israel . What is more surprised is that the American President jumps on this false bandwagon . Solving the Palestinian problem , or rather beating up on Israel , will not make the Arab world more progressive , better governed or less extremist .
America is pursuing a very bad Middle East policy for decades and Professor John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are our only hope to bring America back on the correct and moral path. I applaud every day for their continuing effort on this matter. America is like a teenager who is hanging out with a bad group of friends (aka Israel and Israel Lobby). It reminds me of people that claimed to be your best friends but never have your interests in their hearts. America deserves way better than that!
I can't help thinking that there is a conceptual flaw in your article on Obama's domestic political victory. You argued that getting through the health care bill won't make him stronger on the foreign policy front. I would say that it makes him even weaker!
In my view, Obama's domestic political success will turn out to be a curse in foreign policy. Why? Let's call it the "paradox of strength." Some astute observers will probabily have noticed that I'm using the opposite of Shelling's "paradox of weakness." The foreign leaders will now draw the conclusion that if Obama can get through such a highy controversial bill through Capitol Hill as the health care bill, then he can push through pretty much everything. What does that mean? That they can ask for more when they now engage in hard bargaining with the Obama administration. In other words, world leaders can now be expected to "push around" Obama a littler more. This is an ominous sign, to say the least.
Good luck Mr. Obama!
Agree with Prof Walt and with Dave 123.
I think as Prof walt writes, the peace process between the Palestinians and Israelis, should be supported for its own worth, rather than for being assumed to be a side show for the main event; being in this case Iran. But at the same time, Dave 123 is right, what has President Obama done to date, about Iran, save for some bombastic threats of sanctions, which he knows he will never get international consensus to lauch, and even if he manages that by some miracle, such sanctions will not hurt the regime in Tehran anyway.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Dennis Ross and Markovsky surely don't approve
What in god's name is this obsession with linking multiple intractable issue, as if aggregating the biggest issues together under one comprehensive policy is the fail-safe solution to the world's problems. The notion is downright illogical, yet why do serious academic's keep pressing this?
A mantra of Dennis Ross and Markovsky's book from the past year, prior to the former's promotion, was that linkage is bound for failure. Not only do they make a great case there, it seems like it should be axiomatic.
Will someone tell me where I am missing something? The Israel-Palestinian conflict would exist without Iran arming its proxies and thus ensuring that consequences would be dire. But the interrelated nature of the issues don't mean that solving one will necessarily fix the other. In fact, there are many aspect's of each dilemma that are mutually exclusive, and have no bearing on each other. Even if this weren't the case, there is still the fact that each issue can't be dealt with on their own; through what convoluted logic can they all of a sudden offset each other?
Stephen Walt wrote:
"One apparent area of agreement among virtually all public participants in the recent debate over U.S.-Israeli relations is the importance of confronting Iran.... In short, what you see here is an emerging consensus that Iran is the problem...."
Right, just like there was a consensus "among virtually all public participants in the [] debate" that Iraq needed to be attacked. And you can still see amongst many of those "public participants" in that consensus an amazement that when all the Right people like themselves decided that something would be good to do that no, it didn't turn out good, and in fact turned out stupid and harmful and indeed lethal to hundreds of thousands, including thousands of their own countrymen.
Regardless, I suppose this new consensus means we're in for another little adventure. Strange how "virtually all [the] public participants" in these debates seem so oblivious to the results they produce. On the other hand it's just the taxpayer's money they're playing with, and in the overwhelming main the lives and limbs of other people's children too.
Professor, you do know how to depress one
Just when I thought that there might be cracks amongst the governing elites that would result in a stalemate leading to realism by virtue of their inability to do anything. This government is at its very best when it does nothing. But I guess I was wrong, and Robert Kaplan was right, and my heart broken again. Everybody is pulling together for getting tough on Iran. Is that partially why there was some anger over the Dubai snafu? Because the UAE, I guess, needs to be on board with this Iranian venture? It would also explain Petreaus' statements. I can't imagine that he gives two cents about Arab opinion, all the COIN crap aside. If we were so concerned, we would've pulled out of that region decades ago, and DC shows a profound inability to have a change of heart.
Well, I guess it's onto Tehran.
All this constant talk of peace deals and Israel and the Middle East are absolutely exhausting in that they always ignore the main issue and the only one that truly matters.
Go back to the beginning - creation of Israel (and for that matter all the other states in the region) out of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate. The world agreed that after the creation of Arab Syria, Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, etc., Palestine would be split into two states for two people - a Jewish state (taking up 28% of Palestine after the 1948 war) and the Arab state - by far the larger of the two. Jews accepted, Arabs went to war. The Arabs lost. During the conflict, approximately 700,000 Arabs fled the war zone, approximately 450,000 of whom fled because they were instructed to do so by Arab leaders, who promised to kill everyone in the territory as "Jews" or "Jew collaborators." Note how the two states for two people invisioned a Jewish state and an Arab state. No mention of Palestinians yet. The Arab states meanwhile, ended up expelling approximately 800,000 Jews from their territories, with nearly 500,000 of those settling in Israel. The Arabs who fled the conflict were turned into perpetual refugees and so have their descendants.
There have been numerous wars since that time, numerous acts of terror and numerous peace proposals. But the crux of the problem is not creating a peace deal since everyone realizes that a peace deal would involve land swaps, Palestinian Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza, with a captial in East Jerusalem, etc.
A realist should acknowledge no peace deal is possible so long as the Arabs refuse to recognize the original partion into a Jewish and an Arab state. That is point one of any negotiation and one on which the Arabs never budged. Any peace deal therefore is a joke. It asks for Israel to commit suicide. Arabs demand to win through a peace deal what they can't win on a battlefield - destruction of a Jewish state.
If they wanted a peace deal, they would agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state on the pre-67 borders, with appropriate land adjustments, but that has never been the case since they always insist on "a right of return" - i.e. destruction of the Jewish state.
So what exactly is Israel supposed to negotiate for? If there is a credible Arab plan, with refugees resettled in the Arab part of Palestine, with appropriate compensation paid by Arab states? If so, US needs to put pressure on Israel to settle this baby. Otherwise, what exactly are they negotiating for?
Also, what's endangering American lives more, a lack of a peace agreement in the Middle East, where our allies (at least in the nominal sense) include Lebanon, all the Gulf states, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the rest of North African countries, or a settlement in Kashmir, that is helping to fuel conflict in Pakistan that leads to direct sponsoring and funding of the Taliban by Pakistan and to direct deaths of American soldiers? If so, why isn't the US concentrating on publicly "pressuring" India to give up Kashmir?
Just how is Iran going to meddle with Israel?
Yes, we all know about the Iranian-Hezbollah influence in Lebanon, but what evidence is there of any Iranian involvement in either the West Bank or Gaza?
I've always felt that Israel was ringing the toscin on Iran being "an existential threat to Israeli existence" because this effectively diverts American and other attention away from actually taking muscular steps to contain the injustices that Israel inflicts daily on Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza.
I think sometimes we can be too clever by half if we think we can strategize some action in the occupied territories that will suddenly make the Iranian government appear more rational in their negotiations with us. This is clearly and eggs and apples situation. Doing the right thing is a principle that needs to be followed in whatever areas America operates in regarding our entire Middle Eastern policies.
There is a juggling act that the US has to take between AIPAC, Iran, and concern for human rights in the area. But I think that for now, the preeminent problem facing the United States is how to deal with an obviously intrasigent Israeli government.
Well Karen, that would be Iran's support for HAMAS
The Revolutionary Islamic Government of Iran supports HAMAS the same way it does Hizballah. Arms, training, financing, etc.
.
Of course, the Palestinians in Gaza could alleviate their own suffering with very simple steps, including the release of Gilad Shalit, now held hostage for over four years, ending HAMAS violence (ie, no more rockets), ending its incitement (no more Friday prayer services about killing Jews, and no more Farfur the Mouse suicide bomber wannabe), and accepting the previous agreements made between Israel and the PA.
.
As for the West Bank, you should go and get Mahmoud Abbas to actually take yes for an answer and get back to the negotiating table rather than making threats for a third round of Palestinian violence.
.
But strip away your angst, and the core of the situation becomes clear "I think sometimes we can be too clever by half if we think we can strategize some action in the occupied territories that will suddenly make the Iranian government appear more rational in their negotiations with us."
.
You let me know when the Iranian government becomes rational.
Wow, talk about willful blindness. You have to make a real effort to reach your level of ignorance on the issue. That's impressive, in a way.
Think about this: I've said ot before...NOW THINK ABOUT IT...
...At this time I don't really consider Iran a real problem.
Historically The U.S.(And England) has/have always had a "bad guy"...(Truman) Mao Ztung and Korea.(Eisenhower) Krushchev and Russia...(Kennedy)...Cuba and Castro...(Johnson)...Ho Chi Mhin and Viet Nam...(Reagan)...Quaddaffi and Lybia...Grenada...and other central American countries...(HW.Bush)...Iraq...(G.W.Bush)...Iraq...Afghanistan...
The list is endless..Doesn't anybody GET IT...It's corporations/bankers seeking to control the assets of these "rogue" nations/leaders who won't "play ball" and allow the continuing exploitation. They use the U.S. military to take what they can't exploint any other way.
NO I'm not a "liberal" nor a "conservative", I am just sick of the damn lies, and that most people in America/Europe don't have a clue as to the realities of the world...and this has been going on for hundred-fifty plus years (started in a major way around 1840)...I think it's time to stop it. Just about all the wars after 1840 were "banker's wars"...including the American Civil War...
1840?
Umm...you never studied what the Euros did in running the world before then?
If you want, even go back and look and how the Romans ran their world...
Oh, sorry, I get it now, by 'bankers' that's just a code for Jews...as in those damn Jews started the civil war, because...I don't know, but I love the special sort of crazy that Walt attracts to his threads...
New! Improved! War with Iran!
From the wonderful folks who brought you War with Iraq!
And we're supposed that our incestuous relationship with Israel qualifies us to be an honest broker?
It was interesting how Quaddaffi would be the greatest threat to world peace one day and then disappear from the news entirely for six months. The U.S. usually has some third-world villain waiting in the wings to trot out when it suits our purpose.
An end to the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons might do more to bring about peace than U.S. jawboning.
Next year in Al-Quds.
tehran will have a lot of dead iranians and americans littering the roadside.you can bet on it.you know all this discussion of other countries tyrants make me laugh.other than saddam who invaded iran for us,most of these(mao,stalin etc.)killed their own people.let them judge their own leaders.the usa on the other hand,goes around killing foreigners.take us to the icc.oh,thats right we're not a signatory.sheesh.i guess thats why huh.like someone mentioned,this israeli palestinian conflict was in existence long before iranian revolution,in fact the shah was a great friend of israel.this attempt at linkage is just another smokescreen to further delay a just settlement.the road map to hell.oslo,camp david;all bullcrap.i think the question is;does israel want peace?it sure doesn't look like it.delay and grab more land.overweening pride.the arrogance of god ordained ownership.whom the gods destroy they first make mad.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
(17)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE