Three Strategies Against Obama

Netanyahu's Three Strategies Against Obama
by Patrick Seale


Having been asked by Israel’s President Shimon Peres to form a government, Binyamin Netanyahu, leader of the right-wing Likud party, has until 17 March to try to put together a ruling coalition. Looming over his horse-trading with possible partners is the shadow of Barack Obama, America’s new President.


As he goes about his task, Netanyahu’s prime concern will be to find a way to defuse the threat from Obama, whose views about Iran, about the desirability of a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestine conflict, and about relations with the Muslim world in general, are diametrically opposed to his own.


Early indications suggest that Netanyahu will resort to three distinct strategies to reduce, evade and eventually dispel any likely pressure from Washington, especially on the Palestine question, to which, unlike Obama, he intends to give no priority whatsoever.


His first strategy will be to seek to cobble together a ‘moderate’ coalition of the Likud (27 seats), with Tzipi Livni’s centrist Kadima party (28 seats), and Ehud Barak’s much reduced Labour party (13 seats). Such a coalition could no doubt attract smaller factions, so as to produce a reasonably comfortable majority in the 120-seat Knesset. The only problem is that Tzipi Livni is demanding real decision-making powers in the coalition, which Netanyahu is unwilling to grant her, while Barak seems to think it wiser to rebuild his shattered party in opposition.


From Netanyahu’s perspective, a ‘moderate’ coalition would be better able to neutralise pressure from Obama. The alternative would be a right, far-right and ultra-religious coalition of Likud with Avigdor Lieberman’s unashamedly racist Israel Beiteinu, and other hard-line factions. But such an extremist grouping would attract international opprobrium and further damage Israel’s image -- already severely battered by the Gaza war. In Washington, Israel’s friends and lobbyists would be hard put to protect it against Obama.


Netanyahu’s second strategy might be to extend feelers to Syria in order to attempt to revive the indirect Israeli-Syrian talks, which Turkey has been mediating in recent months, but which Syria broke off because of the Gaza war. Syria might be inclined to agree to resume them as part of its current diplomatic campaign to improve its relations with the European Union and the United States.


In seeking to revive the Syrian track, Netanyahu’s main motive would be to provide him with a pretext for resisting American pressure to advance on the Palestinian track. The argument that it cannot focus on two tracks at the same time is one Israel has long used to prevent any move towards a comprehensive peace.


In any event, Netanyahu has no intention of meeting Syria‘s bottom line demand -- the return of the Golan Heights. Syria, in turn would have no real expectations from revived talks. It knows that it cannot consider reaching a peace agreement with Israel, unless there is substantial progress on the Palestinian track as well. So, if talks were eventually revived, there would be a good deal of cynicism on both sides, and no serious expectation of a favourable outcome.


Netanyahu’s third strategy in dealing with Obama is to play up the alleged danger from Iran and its nuclear programme. It is his way of relegating the Palestinians’ political aspirations to a distant -- very distant -- horizon. Even as he accepted the task of attempting to form a government, Netanyahu lashed out at Iran.


There was no doubt, he declared, that Iran was seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. Israel was faced with its greatest threat since the creation of the State in 1948. Terrorist forces were gathering in the north – his reference to the Hizbullah resistance movement in Lebanon -- and more in the same alarmist vein.


Whipping up hysteria about Iran has long been a familiar Netanyahu tactic. He is desperately anxious to prevent a U.S.-Iranian dialogue such as Obama has proposed, and to which Iran has reacted positively. The same scare tactic -- the allegation that Saddam Hussein was acquiring weapons of mass destruction -- was used by American pro-Israeli neocons in 2002 to push America into war with Iraq.


In testimony this month before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Admiral Dennis Blair, America’s Director of National Intelligence, predicted a confrontation this year between Israel and Iran over the Islamic Republic’s uranium enrichment programme. But few observers in Washington believe that Israel would dare launch an attack against Iran without an American green light -- which the Obama administration would be most unlikely to give.


Instead, as London’s Daily Telegraph reported, Israel is using covert activities -- sabotage, front companies, double agents, assassination -- to disrupt Iran’s nuclear activities. According to the newspaper, Mossad is rumoured to be behind the death of Ardeshire Hassanpour, a top Iranian nuclear scientist at Isfahan’s uranium plant, who died in mysterious circumstances in 2007. Zbigniew Brzezinski , President Jimmy Carter’s former national security adviser and now an American elder statesman critical of Israel, has advised the United States and Iran to proceed to negotiations as soon as possible.


Netanyahu will need to act quickly and be highly resourceful if he is to dent Obama’s determination to turn a new page with Iran, promote Israeli-Palestinian peace, and build bridges with the entire Arab and Muslim world.




Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the Middle East, and the author of The Struggle for Syria; also, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East; and Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire.